Resource Planning: The Colorado Experience

Transcription

1 Resource Planning: The Colorado Experience John Reasoner Commission Advisor, Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Public Utilities Commission 1560 Broadway, Suite 250 Denver, CO P F john.reasoner@dora.state.co.us April 24, 2009

2 Presenter s Background BS Engineering - Colorado School of Mines MBA University or Colorado at Denver Policy Advisor Colorado PUC 2007 present Project Engineer - Black & Veatch Engineer Solid State Instruments

3 History and Background of Regulation in the US and Colorado Utilization of Completive Markets Nationally and in Colorado The Evolution of Resource Planning in Colorado Detailed Description of Our Current Electric Resource Plan (ERP) Process Topics 2

4 Generic Resource Planning Documentation & Regulatory Support Recommen ded Plan & Action Plan Operational Analyses Risk Assessment A Practical Perspective Review Planning Policies Develop Data Assumptions Develop Alternatives Portfolio Optimization 3

5 History and Background of Regulation 4

6 History September 4, Pearl Street Station lamps for 85 customers ,164 lamps for 508 customers 5

7 History Electric Industry Moves Toward Central Power 1891 First commercial use of AC Power at Ames Hydro in Ophir Colorado 6

8 History Ames Station and the Gold King Mine 7

9 Industry Background Central power becomes more cost effective leading companies to compete fiercely for customers (MW) Typical Generator Unit Ratings 8

10 Industry Background Advocacy for Regulation 1898 Samuel Insull of Commonwealth Electric Light & Power proposes that the electric utility industry be regulated by state commissions o Commission would be given full power to set rates and standards of service o Idea became appealing to investor-owned companies because it assured a return and there was growing support for municipal electric systems states had established regulatory agencies for investor owned utilities 9

11 Industry Background Colorado Regulation 1913 Colorado PUC was created with the authority to regulate intrastate retail rates of investor owned utilities In addition to the power now vested in the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, all power to regulate a public utility until such time as the General Assembly may otherwise designate, said authority shall be vested in the Public Utilities Commission Colorado Constitution, Article XXV Public Utilities, added

12 Industry Background 1932 Eight utility holding companies control 73 percent of investor owned utilities Public Utility Holding Company Act Limits operation to a single state or limited geographic area Unregulated businesses require approval and must be kept separate 1936 Rural Electrification Act 11

13 Past Acquisition Process Utility determines need for a facility and files for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) CPCN provides limited information Cost information is not firm No comparison to alternatives Lacks long-term perspective and coordination with possible future resources 12

14 Past Acquisition Process Costs are reviewed as part of a Phase I Ratecase, resource must be used and useful After the fact Recourse is to disallow cost which harms utility No incentive for innovation Limited incentive to reducing costs Incentive to overbuild No time left to pursue alternatives 13

15 Move Toward More Competition 14

16 Rising Prices Cost of nuclear power plants surge On average nuclear power plant in 1970 cost $170 M by 1983 its $1.7B The Vogtle plant originally was estimated at $660 M but final cost was $8.87 B 15

17 Rising Prices 1978 Fuel Use Act - In response to concerns over national energy security the construction of power plants using oil or natural gas as a primary fuel was restricted and the use of coal, nuclear energy and other alternative fuels was encouraged. It also restricted the industrial use of oil and natural gas in large boilers. (Repealed 1987) 16

18 Rising Prices Utilities also overestimated demand which led to overbuilding. Concerns over cost lead to a focus on competition 17

19 Rising Prices in Colorado Situations Specific to Colorado Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant 1977 to 1989 Bankruptcy of Colorado Ute

20 Move Toward Competition Every individual intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. Adam Smith Wealth of Nations

21 Move Toward Competition 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) & 1992 Energy Policy Act Electric utilities to buy power from non-utility producers at the avoided cost Lead to new technologies such as combustion turbines Implementation was left to the States and a variety of regulatory regimes developed 20

22 Move Toward Competition 1996 FERC Order & 2000 Order 888 mandated the unbundling of electrical services and provide open access to their energy rate schedules (tariffs). Order 889 set standards regarding information that utilities must make available to the marketplace and established OASIS. Order 2000 encouraged the voluntary formation of Regional Transmission Organizations to administer the transmission grid on a regional basis throughout North America (including Canada). 21

23 Move Toward Competition Independent System Operator (ISO) Controls and monitors the operation of the electrical power system, usually within a single state, but sometimes encompassing multiple states. Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) for moving electricity over large interstate areas. 22

24 Move Toward Competition ISO/RTOs - provide non-discriminatory transmission access, facilitating competition among wholesale suppliers to improve transmission service and provide fair electricity prices through competition. 23

25 Move Toward Competition Electric Power Markets ISO/RTO s 24

26 Move Toward Competition How it turned out for other States EIA Electric Power Annual with data for 2007 Report Released: January 21, 2009 Next Release Date: October 22,

27 Move Toward Competition State 1999 $/kwh 2007 $/kwh % Difference Colorado % Texas % California % New York % Kansas % Wyoming % Georgia % Florida % 1999 Data: EIA Retail Sales of Electricity Table A Data: EIA Electric Power Annual

28 Move Toward Competition General Market Problems How to address non-cost factors o Carbon, Economic Development, Innovation No consideration of an overall or master plan Time required to build resources or transmission allows companies to exploit market advantages Favors small easier to finance resources 27

29 Move Toward Competition Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price and Volatility /15/2000 1/15/2001 1/15/2002 1/15/2003 1/15/2004 1/15/2005 1/15/2006 1/15/2007 1/15/2008 Dollars per Million Btu Volatility (Percent) 0 Source: Derived by Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. 28

30 Competition in Colorado Difficult to Establish a Power Market in Colorado Differing utility structures, IOU, Municipal, REA Transmission constrained and few load centers General consensus the Colorado ratepayers would not benefit General market problems 29

31 Competition in Colorado Opposed by Public Power Companies COOPs and Municipal power companies are not regulated by the Commission o In these types of organizations the ratepayer and the utility owner are the same 30

32 Competition in Colorado 31

33 Competition in Colorado 32

34 Competition in Colorado Denver 33

35 Competition in Colorado Competitive Acquisition Process Colorado does not have a competitive bulk power market nor retail choice Wholesale purchases are conducted through bilateral contracts which are under the jurisdiction of FERC However Companies compete for the right to provide power for incremental needs via power purchase agreements 34

36 Evolution of Resource Planning in Colorado 35

37 Colorado Resource Planning Background Purpose of Resource Planning, Beyond a CPCN Service Adequacy - Ensure load forecasts and resource acquisition plans are adequate. Resource Selection Resource costs, environmental impacts and other risks borne by ratepayers, Commission needs to consider various technologies and fuel types. Supply Prudence Allows all parties to have input to make sure the utility s plan is prudent. Competitive resource acquisition provides that measure 36

38 Colorado Resource Planning Background General Resource Planning Process Establish Forecasts Examine Policy Goals (DSM, Emissions) Determine How Resources Will Be Evaluated Request Bids for Resources Bid Evaluation and Transmission Assessment Run Models Evaluate Model Runs Select Resources File for CPCN 37

39 Colorado Resource Planning Background Interested Parties Staff of the Commission and Office of Consumer Counsel Industry Groups Large Consumers Developers Environmental Consumer Groups Other Government Agencies Other Utilities Pro Se 38

40 Colorado Resource Planning Background 1992 Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Utility Process Public Process Establish Forecasts Examine Other Policy Goals (DSM, Emissions) Determine How Resources Will Be Evaluated Resource Bids Bid Evaluation and Transmission Assessment Run Models Utility Developed Its Own Resources Evaluate Portfolios Parties Offer Comments Commission to Approve a Portfolio 39

41 Colorado Resource Planning Background 1995 IRP Results (to be added through 2003) 1265 MW of gas-fired generation owned by PSCo 25 MW of DSM 5 MW of wind owned by PSCo 1136 MW of Purchase Power (QF and Utility Owned) 40

42 Colorado Resource Planning Background 1996 IRP Rule Revision Process was the same but added more focus on soliciting bids from Independent Power Producers Concerns Over Utility Owned Resources at Ft St Vrain 1995 Bid Process was Considered Flawed 41

43 Colorado Resource Planning Background 1999 IRP Results (additions through 2005) 1830 MW of gas-fired generation owned by PSCo 124 MW of DSM 4 MW of wind owned by PSCo (to negotiate 162 MW additional) 42

44 Colorado Resource Planning Background 2001 IRP Rule Revision they became Least Cost Planning (LCP) Concerns with low forecast in 1995 and 1999 compelled Commission to have input earlier. Post-bid IRP proceedings were contentious and lengthy leading to outdated bids Up-front approval was more consistent with the jurisdiction over Tri-State Current Commission held least-cost as the primary criteria eliminating the need for any Commission consideration of the bid evaluation 43

45 Colorado Resource Planning Background 2001 Least Cost Planning (LCP) Public Process Utility Process Establish Forecasts Examine Other Policy Goals (DSM, Emissions) Determine How Resources Will Be Evaluated All Source Solicitation Bid Evaluation and Transmission Assessment Run Models Evaluate Portfolios and Choose Least Cost Independent Monitor to Oversee Negotiations 44

46 Colorado Resource Planning Background 2001 LCP Results (additions through 2013) 750 MW pulverized, supercritical coal plant owned by PSCo 500 MW wind independently owned 45

47 Colorado Resource Planning Background Problems with Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) and Least Cost Planning (LCP) Regulatory input was limited to either the end or the beginning No oversight or ability to scrutinize the modeling process Difficult to address non-cost factors which require a Commission determination such a preference for renewable energy 46

48 Overview of the Current Electric Resource Planning Process in Colorado 47

49 ERP Process Electric Resource Planning An IOU must file an Electric Resource Plan (ERP) every four years which includes a competitive bidding process for resources above 30 MW. Recovery of costs and whether they were prudently incurred will still be addressed in Phase I Ratecase 48

50 ERP Process Current Process 49

51 ERP Process Requirements for a Utility s Initial Plan Designate a Resource Acquisition Period (RAP) and planning period Annual electric demand and energy forecast Evaluation of existing resources Planning reserve margins Assessment of need for additional resources and description of a plan to acquire these resources Proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) documents Description of three alternate scenarios which include increasing amounts of Section 123 type resources 50

52 ERP Process ERP Phase I RFP Bid Evaluation/ Modeling ERP Phase II Establish Forecasts Examine Goals for DSM and Renewables Determine Model Variables Evaluate Model RFP Documents Approve Independent Evaluator All Source Solicitation Bid Evaluation and Transmission Assessment Run Models Utility and IE Present a Report on various Portfolios Evaluate Portfolios Parties Offer Comments Commission to Approve a Portfolio 340 Days 91 Days 120 Days 90 Days (112 Days Between Phase I and RFP) 51

53 ERP Process Inputs Other issues raised within the ERP Proceeding Imputed Debt Utility Ownership Climate Change and Carbon Reduction Contract Rights Plant Retirement 52

54 ERP Process Inputs Comparison of Utility Ownership Utility Benefits Flexibility in dispatching and operations Potential benefit of owning and asset past its depreciated life Easier to make changes to reflect shifts in public or environmental policy Utility has the obligation to serve Utility Risks Risk of cost over-runs Risk of owning obsolete or an environmentally detrimental technology 53

55 ERP ERP Process Inputs Comparison of IPP Ownership IPP Benefits Financial risks largely borne by Investors Commitment to technology limited to the term of the contract Competition between vendors leads to greater innovation and lower costs IPP Risks Risk that an IPP may go bankrupt IPP may back-out of a contract Risk of owning obsolete technologies 54

56 ERP Process Inputs Scrutinize and Determine Modeling Parameters Fuel Forecasts and Volatility factors Demand and Energy Forecasts (adjusted for DSM) Cost of Carbon Reserve Margin and Shaft Risk Capacity Factors for Renewables Renewable Integration Costs Generic Resource Cost 55

57 ERP Process Inputs Demand and Energy Forecasts Energy Base Case: o PSCo decline -0.5% per year through 2015 o Black Hills grow 2.4% per year through 2027 Demand Base Case: o PSCo decline -0.7% per year through 2015 o Black Hills grow 2.2% per year through

58 ERP Process Inputs Demand and Energy Forecasts Other factors o Go beyond Resource Acquisition Period o A low, base and high are submitted o Customer load profiles also provided Forecast Adjustments Adjustment for DSM o Conservation o Demand Response Reliability o Reserve Margin o Shaft Risk 57

59 ERP Process Inputs PSCO loads and Resources Table 58

60 ERP Process Inputs Reserve Margin 16.3% (Net Capacity Firm Load) Firm Load Includes Planning and operating reserves o Operating consists of spinning and 10 minutes reserve and is coordinated with the Rocky Mountain Reserve Group o Other ancillary services such as VAR support not addressed Based on a Loss of Load Probability Study (24 hours in 10 years or 2.4 hours per year) 59

61 ERP Process Inputs Fuel Forecasts Natural Gas (includes an additional cost to account for volatility) Coal Year Gas $/MMBTU $5.61 $6.53 $8.05 $9.06 $9.42 $9.99 $10.33 Coal $/MMBTU $1.37 $1.51 $1.53 $1.50 $1.56 $1.60 $

62 ERP Process Inputs Other variables Carbon cost $20/lbs o escalating at 7% /yr (5.5% real with 2.5% inflation) Discount rate 7.88% o Company s weighted average cost of capital 61

63 Emission Rates of New Resources ERP Process Inputs Typical Emissions Rates SO 2 (lb/mwh) NO X (lb/mwh) PM (lb/mwh) Hg (lb/milllion MWh) CO 2 (lb/mwh) Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Wind Solar Biomass N/A Coal 2200 lbs/mwh 62

64 ERP Process Inputs Designate other factors which will require the Commission s consideration, difficult to quantify Utility and Independent Power Producer (IPP) ownership Energy Security Environmental Benefits Economic Development Water Usage Plant Retirement, Refurbish, Repower or Mothball Overall Transmission Priories 63

65 ERP Process Renewable Energy Renewable Energy Standard It is the Commission s policy that utilities should meet the renewable energy standard in the most cost effective manner. (4 CCR (a)) 64

66 ERP Process Renewable Energy Least Cost Planning It is the Commission's policy that a competitive acquisition process will normally be used to acquire new utility resources. This process is intended to result in least-cost resource portfolios, taking into consideration projected system needs, reliability of proposed resources, expected generation loading characteristics, and various risk factors. The rules are intended to be neutral with respect to fuel type or resource technology. (4 CCR ) 65

67 ERP Process Renewable Energy Consideration for Renewable Resources Each QRU shall generate, or cause to be generated, electricity from eligible renewable energy resources in the following minimum amounts: o 2007 : 3% of retail electricity sales (MWh) o : 5% o : 10% o : 15% o 2020 : 20% Solar set aside: 4% of the above from solar energy, half of which from customer sited resources 66

68 ERP Process Renewable Energy Characteristics of Renewables Capacity Factor o Wind 30 to 40% o Solar 30% (PV) 50% (trough) Capacity Credit (Effective Load Carrying Capability) o Wind 12.5% o Solar 60% (fixed PV) 70% (single axis) 81% (troughs) Integration Costs o Wind at 20% 8.56/MWh ($10 gas price) o Solar up to 400 MW $1.00 to $2.00 /MWh, >400 MW $5.00 to $

69 ERP Process Integration Costs PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/1/ (MWh) 3000 Load 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 68

70 ERP Process Integration Costs PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/2/ Load 3000 (MWh) 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 69

71 ERP Process Integration Costs PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/3/ (MWh) 3000 Load 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 70

72 ERP Process Integration Costs PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/4/ (MWh) 3000 Load 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 71

73 ERP Process Integration Costs PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/5/ (MWh) 3000 Load 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 72

74 ERP Process Renewable Energy PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/6/ (MWh) 3000 Load 2500 Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 73

75 ERP Process Renewable Energy PSCo Wind Generation Effect on Obligation Load 6/7/ (MWh) Load Load Net Wind Date 12:59 AM 1:59 AM :59 AM 3:59 AM 4:59 AM 5:59 AM 6:59 AM 7:59 AM 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM 11:59 AM 12:59 PM 1:59 PM 2:59 PM 3:59 PM 4:59 PM 5:59 PM 6:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 9:59 PM 10:59 PM 11:59 PM Time 74

76 ERP Process Integration Costs 75

77 ERP Process Integration Costs 76

78 ERP Process Integration Costs Integration Issues Large Ramp Up/Down situations Greater Cumulative System (Load + Wind) Variability Increased Starts/Stops (costs) on Gas-fired units Gas pipeline balancing issues Large penetration levels of wind requiring turn-down in baseload levels at nighttime and in shoulder months Future unit minimum issues 77

79 ERP Process Integration Costs 78

80 ERP Process Integration Costs Graph of Wind Integration Costs Integration Cost ($/MWh) GWh or 10% 8214 GWh or 20% Total Wind GWh 79

81 ERP Process Integration Costs Ways to mitigate Integration Costs Wind forcasting; PSCo Wind Predictor (WiP) o Currently 18% error o PSCo Estimates savings of $1,379,000 /yr (1% reduction in error) o Estimated cost $2.6 million for implementation and 0.75 million for hardware and software at windfarms 80

82 ERP Process Renewable Energy 81

83 ERP Process Renewable Energy Other Types of Renewables (Section 123 Resources) The commission shall give the fullest possible consideration to the cost-effective implementation of new clean energy and energyefficient technologies in it consideration of generation acquisition for electric utilities

84 ERP Process -RFP All-Source Request for Proposals (RFP) Differing Type with Regard to Ownership o Model Power Purchase Agreement o Model Energy Purchase Agreement o Engineer Procure and Construct o Build to Own o Wind Site Acquisition and Development Differing Types with Regard to Resource o Peak, Intermediate, and Base Load o Wind, Dispatchable, Semi-Dispatchable, and Nonwind/Non-Dispatchable 83

85 ERP Process - RFP Request for Proposals (RFP) Process Parties will have had an opportunity to offer comments o Consideration of imputed debt and capital leasing o Security provisions o Utility issues RFP s reflecting any changes detailed in the Phase I order (Commission does not approve RFPs) Utility manages all aspects of this process including bid meeting and answering questions 84

86 ERP Process - RFP Issues Parties Present with RFP s Utility buy back provisions Capital leasing and imputed debt Provision for resolution of disputes Security provisions Penalties and remedies for not achieving contract milestones Bid fee Initial screening criteria 85

87 ERP Process Bid Evaluation Bid Evaluation Process Bids are initially screened (its been important to stipulate how and for what reasons bids maybe rejected) Utility takes lead to determine transmission costs Modeling in done independently by the utility and the IE 86

88 ERP Process Bid Evaluation PSCo Proposed Transmission Projects 87

89 ERP Process Transmission Planning PSCo Proposed Transmission Projects 88

90 ERP Process - Modeling Difficult to Comparison of Resources Different resources have different cost streams Resources will interact with each other and the system differently Example: The combination of wind and gas, may result in lower cost system then if a coal resource were built that by itself is actually lower cost As a result a resources need to be evaluated on a system wide basis 89

91 ERP Process - Modeling Exponential Growth of Possible Scenarios B D G A E C H F Scenarios (Bellman s Principal Used to Reduce the Number of Scenarios) 90

92 ERP Process - Modeling Modeling of Screened Bids A bid becomes a model resource; the costs and data submitted in the proposals are used to develop a resource model in software know as Strategist. All the other previously discussed variables are also input into Strategist as well as the current company resources to create a simulation of the system Strategist then runs scenarios which involve dispatching the modeled resources in order to meet forecasted load as well as meet other criteria such as emissions. Strategist then develops portfolios of resources which minimize the Net Present Value Revenue Requirement (NPVRR) 91

93 ERP Process - Modeling Modeling Resource Acquisition by Dispatching the System Wholesale Sales Load + Minimum Reserves MW Purchased Capacity Committed Purchases / Renewables Existing Units

94 ERP Process - Modeling Interaction of different resource within a system Westinghouse AP 100 PWR Size 1000 MW Full Load Heat Rate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Variable O&M Equivalent Forced Outage Rate Average weeks for Maintenance 10,510 Btu/kWh 2,813 $/kw 58,000 $/kw 0.60 $/MWh 4% 2 93

95 ERP Process - Modeling Interaction of different resource within a system LMS-100 Size Full Load Heat Rate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Variable O&M Equivalent Forced Outage Rate Average weeks for Maintenance Year Available Construction Time 86 MW (gross) 8,922 Btu/kWh 1,012 $/kw 8.59 $/kw 3.59 $/MWh 3%

96 ERP Process - Modeling Interaction of different resource within a system Wind Size Capital Cost Fixed O&M Variable O&M Typical Capacity Factor Year Available Construction Time 100 MW 2512 $/kw 1,500 $/kw $/MWh 35% Incremental Incremental 95

97 Strategist Model Run ERP Process - Modeling 96

98 ERP Process Portfolio Evaluation ERP Phase II Portfolios reflecting the determination of the Phase I decision are presented to the Commission and intervening parties by both the Independent Evaluator and Utility Parties file comments Commission grants prudence to specific portfolio 97

99 ERP Process Portfolio Evaluation Post Commission Approval of a Portfolio Utility to negotiate contracts If the Company deviates from the approved portfolio it must file a contingency plan For utility build projects a CPCN must be filed (CPCN process analogous to contract negotiations) If an allocation for any specific resource is no filled targeted bidding is then conducted 98

100 Resource Planning in General The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order Alfred North Whitehead 99

101 Resource Planning in General Conclusions Important identify the necessary planning steps o Address forecasts and model inputs, policy goals resource evaluation, regional characteristics of the industry An initial up a framework to address these steps should be set forth early on o Flexible, involve stakeholders early on Competition can be an effective tool but recognize the limitations Modeling is just a tool Understand the what if you re wrong scenarios 100