Northern States Power Company Minnesota. Northern States Power Company. Wisconsin. Public Service Company of. Public Service. Southwestern.

Transcription

1 Perspective on Regional Challenges Judy M. Poferl President and CEO NSP Minnesota September 15, 2011

2 Xcel Energy Service Territories Northern States Power Company Minnesota Public Service Company of Colorado Southwestern Public Service Company Northern States Power Company Wisconsin Maintain reasonably priced, reliable energy Address risk through advanced, balanced, and diverse energy portfolio Create value for customers, shareholders and employees Gas Customers 1.9 M Electric Customers 3.4 M

3 Our Focus Reasonable cost Safe service Reliable service Forward-looking Fuel diversity Environmental leadership Innovation for the future

4 Built to Last Strategy Invest in our core electric and gas businesses Provide safe, clean, reliable and affordable energy Meet policy objectives and manage risk Demonstrated t benefits to stakeholders Satisfy customers Achieve policy objectives Earn fair total return for shareholders

5 Xcel Energy s Perspective Clarity and certainty of rules is essential Aging infrastructure Long-lead time, long-lived lived assets Reliability investments Significant capital required Investments must demonstrate value Cost Reliability Environment Risk

6 Mitigating Risk is Key Early adoption of clean energy initiatives Reduces long-term environmental and compliance risk Secures place at the table Gives us time and lowers costs Enhance flexibility Retirements, retrofits and repowering Emission controls Nuclear power uprates and life extensions Grid expansion and improvements

7 The Challenges Evolving environmental policies Federal and regional transmission policies Expansive agenda

8 EPA Initiatives Propose or finalize at least seven major rulemakings Focused on air quality Would require billions of dollars in scrubber, SCR and other environmental costs Anticipated to result in widespread power plant retirements Timing Usually requires compliance within three to five years Exception: Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Need several years for planning, engineering, procurement and installation

9 EPA Initiatives Non-CO 2 Environmental Regulatory Timeline for Coal Units Ozone SO 2 /NO 2 CAIR Water Revised Ozone NAAQS Beginning CAIR Phase I Seasonal NOx Cap CAIR Vacated PM-2.5 SIPs Due ( 97) Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS CAIR Remanded Begin CAIR Phase I Annual SO 2 Cap NO 2 Primary NAAQS SO 2 Primary NAAQS Proposed CAIR Replacement Rule Expected Final CAIR Replacement Rule Expected Final Rule for Next CCBs PM-2.5 Mgmt NAAQS Revision Effluent Guidelines Proposed Rule Expected SO 2 /NO 2 Secondary NAAQS PM-2.5 SIPs Due ( 06) Effluent Guidelines Final Rule Expected 316(b) Final Rule Expected Next Ozone NAAQS Revision 316(b) Compliance 3-4 Yrs After Final Rule Regional Haze BART Compliance Effluent Guidelines Compliance 3-5 Yrs After Final Rule CAMR & Delisting Rule Vacated Regional Haze BART Submitted to EPA Begin CAIR Phase I Annual NOx Cap PM2.5 Proposed Rule for CCBs Management 316(b) Proposed Rule Expected HAPS MACT Proposed Rule Regional Haze SIP Submitted to EPA HAPS MACT Final Rule Expected Final EPA Non-attainment Designations Ash New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations Begin Compliance Requirements Under Final CCB Rule (Ground Water Monitoring, Double Monitors, Closure, Dry Ash Conversion) Compliance with CAIR Replacement Rule Hg/HAPS Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual SO 2 & NOx Caps HAPS MACT Compliance 3 Yrs After Beginning i CAIR Phase II Seasonal NOx Cap Regional Haze Compliance Final Rule Deadline *Adapted from Wegman (EPA 2003) Updated

10

11

12 Upper Midwest Fuel Mix Current 2025 Nuclear Nuclear 30% Other 28% Other 7% 15% Natural Gas 7% Natural Wind Gas 20% Wind 16% 9% Coal 39% Coal 29%

13 Key Decisions Retire and Replace Natural gas supplemented with renewables? Higher operating costs? More volatility? Retrofit More retrofits in the future? Future carbon costs? Costs over useful life?

14 Emission Reduction Initiatives Retrofit anchor coal units Minnesota Emissions Reduction Project Retrofit one unit to BACT level controls Retire five units Construct two natural gas combined cycle units Preserve valuable assets for the future Retire heritage coal units Black Dog Proposal Retire 270 MW of remaining coal Construct natural gas combined cycle unit Maintain reasonable long-term cost Approach requires significant investment and supportive regulation

15 Industry Response U.S. vs Xcel Energy, Percentage of Coal Fleet Retired/Replaced/Fuel Switched Retrofit Cost for Non-Retired Coal Units Retrofit Cost (Fleet-wide as Percentage Average, $/kw) of Market Cap U.S. (EEI/ICF Analysis) 18% - 31%* $667 - $685* n/a AEP (largest U.S. coal generator) 24% $261 - $367 31% - 43% Southern Company ~40% $700 - $ % - 45% Xcel Energy 15% $130 - $371 9% - 25% * EEI / ICF analysis results reflect scenarios with and without carbon regulation

16 Concurrent Strategies Nation s No. 1 Wind Provider Industry leader in energy efficiency programs Transmission investments Commitment to innovation MW 4000 Energy Innovation Corridor Electric vehicles NSP Wind Capacity Savings Demand 2.1 million kw Natural Gas 9.3 million MCF Electricity 4.8 billion kwh Results: Equivalent of removing 4 million metric tons of CO 2 emissions

17 System Wind Resources Over 3,000 turbines Three operating companies Three market structures MISO WECC SPP PSCo 1,735 MW NSP-MN 1,591 MW Xcel Energy 4,256 MW SPS 736 MW (930 MW in BA)

18 That Was Then Then.

19 This Is Now: Grand Meadow Wind Farm

20 Wind Power $70 Provides value today $8/mmBtu Natural Gas and in the future $60 $40 Dollars per MWh $4/mmBtu Natural Gas $50 No need to take projects $30 $20 $10 $ Wind Generation Alternative Generation Ahead of RES Creates economic pressure Current prices are significantly lower than previously seen

21 Wind Challenges Wind production forecast error Largest hourly change (MWs) Wind Net Load NSP ,094 PSCo ,066 SPS System operational impacts

22 Solutions Better understand wind Partner with experts Improve forecasts Improve wind event detection Increase flexibility on system Operator vigilance Flex reserve requirement Gas nominations

23 Energy Markets Matter NSP: 1,293 MWs 116,000 MW MISO footprint Substantial import/export capability SPS: 653 MWs 46,000 MW SPP footprint Limited transmission North/South flow issues PSCo: 1,258 MWs 7,900 MW Balancing Authority Limited import/export capability Highest penetration level

24 Energy Efficiency

25 Demand-Side Management Lower costs to customers by reducing the need for new power plants $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000, Give customers greater control $150,000,000 over their costs $100,000,000 C&I customers are the key to the success of our programs $50,000,000 $ Avoided Revenue Requirements Total Program Expenditures (Includes Incentives)

26 Regulation of GHGs (Carbon Dioxide) Congress Impasse (Can t pass anything/can t stop EPA) Supreme Court AEP v. Connecticut t (June 2011) Preemption of state common law claims remains unclear EPA regulation

27 Regulation of Existing GHG Sources EPA regulation under CAA State plans must meet Federal guidelines Likely to be stack-by by- stack limits Risk of stranding "Train Wreck" retrofits Our strategy t Seek credit for state clean energy initiatives Lower cost, greater benefit Xcel Energy Emissions Reductions in Colorado Annual CO 2 Emissions Reduction (Million Metric Tons) Hypothetical Coal Plant CAA Source-Limit State Clean Energy Programs

28 Looking Forward Continue to pursue balanced, diverse energy portfolio Likely slowed due to recession Address coal infrastructure Long-term Sherco plan Explore and implement cost-effective new technologies Advocate for flexible, low-cost energy and environmental policies

29 Transmission Active Project Highlights North Dakota Michigan South Dakota Minnesota Wisconsin

30 Transmission Projects Fargo-Monticello 345 kv 240 miles, $570M Under Construction Est. In-Service: 2015 Brookings Co.-Hampton 345 kv 240 miles, $725M Permitting Substantially Complete Est. In-Service: 2015 Hiawatha-Midtown 115 kv 1.5 miles, $35M Permitting Est. In-Service: 2013 Couderay-Osprey 161 kv 40 miles, $45M Pre-PermittingPermitting Est. In-Service: 2013 Hampton-La Crosse 345 kv 150 miles, $445M Permitting Est. In-Service: 2015

31 Transmission Development Process Regional Stakeholder Involvement Regulatory Need Approval Environmental Analysis & Siting Route Permitting Critical Path Land Rights Acquisition Engineering & Procurement Construction Public Outreach / Involvement 2+ Years <<<<<<<<<<<<<< 4-8 Years >>>>>>>>>>>>>

32 Cost Allocation Working Group

33 FERC Order 1000 Federal ROFR Provisions Removes Federal ROFR for projects selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation Limitations Does not apply to a facility not selected in a regional plan Does not apply to upgrades to transmission facilities Allows, but does not require, use of competitive bidding Does not preempt state or local laws or regulations

34 FERC Order 1000 Timeline Required Compliance Q2/Q October Days After the Final Rule is Published in the Federal Register April 2013 Compliance Filing Interregional Transmission Coordination & Interregional Cost Allocation Jul 21, 2011 Oct 1, 2011 Jan 1, 2012 Apr 1, 2012 Jul 1, 2012 Oct 1, 2012 Jan 1, 2013 Apr 1, 2013 Jun 10, 2013 October 2012 Compliance Filing Local & Regional Transmission Planning Processes & Regional Cost Allocation FERC Order No FERC Order No Final Rule on Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities Compliance

35 The Challenge Ahead NSP Planned Infrastructure Investments ~ $7.2 Billion Between 2010 and 2015 Transmission Nuclear Distribution Coal/Nat Gas Wind ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Dollars in thousands Potential rate impact may average about 3.8% per year Multiple rate cases, multiple rate riders

36 Stakeholder Alignment Policymakers Customers Regulators Community Shareholders Building long-term goals Having access to sound environmental programs and options Keeping rates reasonable Implementing an efficient and effective framework for oversight and cost recovery Creating jobs and energy sustainability Reducing risk and providing growth

37 Value Proposition Stakeholders Continued advancement of policy objectives Addresses rates more comprehensively and predictably Regulatory efficiency Improved line of sight to business Company Improves opportunity to earn sustainable ROEs Facilitates required investments with fewer riders Pre-determined increases will improve budget decisions

38 The Path Forward Policy Makers and Stakeholders Efficient Investment Customers Energy Provider Business Innovation Advanced Technologies

39 Built to Last Solid strategy to meet customer needs and grow our business, adding long-term value Proactive initiatives have been achieved at minimal cost, balancing price and environmental risk Positioned to meet new requirements that may come in the near future Committed to continued work with stakeholders to ensure reliability, safety, and value over the long term

40