2016 Integrated Resource Plans. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

Transcription

1 2016 Integrated Resource Plans Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress 1

2 Resource Planning Overview Growth in Customer Consumption Changes in Load Forecast Impacts of Energy Efficiency (EE) Resource Retirements Plant Retirement Purchase Contract Expiry Resource Need Load Resource Balance Reserve Margin Non-conventional Resources Remaining Resource Gap 2016 Resource Plans Base Plan w/ Carbon Tax Base Plan w/ Carbon Mass Cap 2

3 DEC Load Resource Balance (Including Reserve Requirements) Peak demand growth and asset retirements are largest drivers for resource needs in DEC First need in DEC occurs in winter of

4 DEP Load Resource Balance (Including Reserve Requirements) Peak demand growth, asset retirements, and purchase contract expirations are the largest drivers for resource needs in DEP First need in DEP occurs in winter of

5 Resource Adequacy Study 5

6 Conclusions Load response in cold weather and solar penetration have transitioned DEC/DEP systems to winter capacity planning utilities Based on 1 day in 10 year criteria DEC: 16.5% winter reserve margin DEP: 17.5% winter reserve margin Adopted a 17% minimum winter reserve margin target for DEC and DEP based on the consensus of the two studies Economics support the 17% winter reserve margin 6

7 Solar Sensitivities 7

8 Key Inputs 8

9 Load Forecast - System Winter Peaks Before and After EE 9

10 Key Inputs: Energy Efficiency & Demand Side Management 10

11 DEC Base Case EE 11

12 DEP Base Case EE 12

13 Key Inputs: Renewables 13

14 Process for Forecasting Renewable Generation Identify Key Drivers NC REPS and SC DERP Targets PURPA & other Incentives Customer Demand Least Cost, System Benefits Evaluate main variables Economic Factors Operational Consideration; Jurisdictional Differences Interest in customer programs Markets, Policy and Regulatory Developments Produce Renewable MW & MWH forecasts Multiple internal reviews with subject matter experts Alignment with recent trends and other studies Assessment of market environment to determine base case or most likely outcome 14 14

15 Forecast Results: DEC Renewable MW by Category 15

16 Forecast Results: DEP Renewable MW by Category The renewable projection for DEP shows a different mix between solar PURPA and NC REPS compliance vs. DEC due to two factors: a) much larger pipeline of solar projects in the queue and b) lower compliance needs relative to MWH targets 16

17 Solar Generation Capacity North Carolina vs Other States 17

18 NC REPS DEC 2020 System Load Forecast 99,132 GWh 2020 NC Load Forecast 71,347 GWh DEP 2020 System Load Forecast 65,869 GWh 2020 NC Load Forecast 58,586 GWh 2020 NC Retail Load Forecast 62,760 GWh 12.5% of 2020 NC Retail Load 7,845 GWh (DEC) 5,058 GWh (DEP) 2020 NC Retail Load Forecast 40,460 GWh * 7,845 GWh (DEC) and 5,058 GWh (DEP) only represents the projected amount of Renewables and EE required to meet REPS compliance in 2021 based on the NC Retail load forecast for the year The cumulative EE and renewables energy on the DEP system is expected to be greater than what is represented here. Additionally, NC REPS allows 65% of the 2021 target to be met by EE and Out of State Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). 18

19 Technology Screening 19

20 Technology Screening 20

21 Economic Screening Technologies Screened During Economic Screening 1 Baseload Peaking/Intermediate Renewable 782 MW Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal with CCS 166 MW 4 x LM6000 CT 2 MW / 8 MWh Li-ion Battery 557 MW 2x1 IGC with CCS 201 MW 12 x Reciprocating Engine Plant 5 MW Landfill Gas 2 x 1,117 MW Nuclear Units (AP1000) 870 MW 4 x 7FA.05 CT MW Wind On-Shore (Non- Dispatchable) 576 MW 1x1x1 Advanced CC (Inlet Chiller & Fired) 5 MW Solar PV (Non-Dispatchable) 1,160 MW 2 x 2 x 1 Advanced CC (Inlet Chiller & Fired) 20 MW CHP Notes 1: Units highlighted in Red font were screened into the quantitative analysis as potential supply-side resource options to meet future capacity needs 2: A 2x7FA.05 version was also included based upon the cost to construct 4 units 21

22 Analytic Analysis 22

23 IRP Process Drivers Key drivers were varied in System Optimizer (SO) to assess impacts on resource plans Potential Carbon Constraints 1. Carbon Tax on existing coal and gas units 2. System Carbon Mass Cap (System Mass Cap) Nuclear license extensions All units relicensed in sensitivity Coal and natural gas fuel prices (high / low sensitivities) Capital costs (high / low sensitivities) All assets (nuclear, CC/CT, Renewables) Renewables Only Solar penetration (high / low sensitivities) In all cases, SO was able to select economic solar Energy Efficiency (high sensitivity) Peak demand (high / low sensitivities) 23

24 IRP Process Portfolios (DEP) Six portfolios were developed based on the results of the SO sensitivity analysis 24

25 IRP Process Portfolios (DEC) Six portfolios were developed based on the results of the SO sensitivity analysis 25

26 IRP Process Portfolio Analysis The six portfolios were evaluated under several world view scenarios using an hourly production cost model called PROSYM Carbon Tax/No Carbon Tax Scenarios 1 Fuel CO2 CAPEX 1 Current Trends Base CO2 Tax Base 2 Economic Recession Low Fuel No CO2 Tax Low 3 Economic Expansion High Fuel CO2 Tax High System Mass Cap Scenarios 2 Fuel CO2 CAPEX 4 Current Trends - CO 2 Mass Cap Base Mass Cap Base Portfolios #1 - #4 were run under the Carbon Tax/No Carbon Tax Scenarios Portfolios #5 & #6 were run under the System Mass Cap Scenario Portfolios #1 - #4 would not meet the system mass cap constraints 26

27 IRP Process Portfolio Carbon Emission Profiles Portfolio #4 (High CC) has the highest CO2 emissions over the long term The system CO2 mass cap constraint is not met without nuclear relicensing, or new nuclear generation, in the late 2020s. 27

28 IRP Process Conclusions DEP Portfolio #1 (CT Centric) is the least cost portfolio under a Carbon Tax paradigm The short-term build plan in Portfolio #1 would keep the Company on track if a system CO2 mass cap were implemented DEC Portfolio #4 (High CC) is the least cost portfolio under a Carbon Tax paradigm, however its carbon foot print would not be sustainable under a System Carbon Mass Cap With Lee Nuclear included, Portfolio #1 (CT Centric) is the least cost portfolio followed by high EE and high renewable portfolios 28

29 Results 29

30 2016 IRP - DEP Expansion Plan Base Case Year Nuclear Uprates CHP Nuclear Uprates Asheville CC CHP Nuclear Uprates New CC Nuclear Uprates Potential Asheville CT Notes: Duke Energy Progress Resource Plan (1) Base Case - Winter Resource MW Nuclear Uprates 8 Sutton Blackstart CT 100 CHP 22 New CT 468 New CT New CT New CT New CT (1) Table includes both designated and undesignated capacity additions Future additions of renewables, EE and DSM not included DEP Base Case Resources Cumulative Winter Totals Nuclear 44 CC 1781 CT 3562 CHP 66 Total

31 2016 IRP - DEC Expansion Plan Base Case Year Lee CC CHP Hydro Refurb Return to Service CHP Nuclear Uprates CHP Hydro Refurb Return to Service Bad Creek Uprate CHP Bad Creek Uprate New CC Notes: (1) Table includes both designated and undesignated capacity additions Future additions of renewables, EE and DSM not included (2) Lee CC capacity is net of NCEMC ownership of 100 MW (3) Rocky Creek Units currently offline for refurbishment; these are expected return to service dates (4) Lee Nuclear in service dates are assumed to be Nov 2026 and May 2028 Duke Energy Carolinas Resource Plan (1) Base Case - Winter Resource MW Nuclear Uprates 25 Bad Creek Uprate Bad Creek Uprate New CT New Nuclear New Nuclear DEC Base Case Resources Cumulative Winter Totals Nuclear 2319 CC 1904 CT 468 Hydro 202 CHP 109 Total

32 2016 IRP - Joint System Energy by Resource Type Carolinas Energy by Fuel Type Carolinas Energy by Fuel Type

33 Key Takeways 33

34 Key Takeaways Short Term Completion of 1,250 MWs of CC, 100 MWs CTs and 185 MWs Pumped Storage System impact of increasing amounts of Solar T&D, Unit Flexibility, Storage Winter Planning Based on the LOLE study new generation need is driven by winter peaks. First need best met with CC in DEC and DEP 2022 in DEP, 2023 in DEC New Gas Capacity and associated Infrastructure Long Term Pursue 80 year license life for existing nuclear COL for Lee Nuclear 34

35 Q & A 35