PRELIMINARY IRP RESULTS. Presentation to External Stakeholder 1/29/2013

Transcription

1 PRELIMINARY IRP RESULTS Presentation to External Stakeholder 1/29/2013 1

2 Short-term Recommendation Retire of capacity between 2015 and 2018 Steam (40) Dec GT02 (13) Dec LSDa(51.5) Dec Specific DSM programs to be identified Install the following generating capacity by 2019: Capacity Required () Biomass Landfill gas-to-energy Wind Reciprocating Engines 2

3 Conditions The recommendations are contingent on: Acquiring land access for the development of a wind farm and/or successfully negotiating Power Purchase Agreements with IPPs for wind energy Access to a secure supply of biomass and landfill gas at the prices used in the IRP Extension of BL&P s franchise which currently expires in 2028 FTC approval of the IRP Compliance with legislative requirements 3

4 Utility Scale Solar PV Utility scale solar PV is not selected in the optimum plan at an overnight build cost of $7,000 / KW. Based on current assumptions, utility scale solar is selected in the optimal plan at an overnight build cost below $5,500 /kw. Distributed solar PV is currently being facilitated under BL&P s RE Rider 4

5 Acronyms CCGT30 30 Liquid-fueled Combined Cycle Gas Turbine GT20 20 Liquid-fueled Gas Turbine LSD17 17 Low Speed Diesel MSD17 17 Medium Speed Diesel NG-LSD17 17 Natural gas dual-fired LSD NG-MSD17 17 Natural gas dual-fired MSD NG-CCGT30 30 Natural gas fired CCGT NG-GT20 20 Natural gas fired GT Land.Gas Landfill gas-to-energy Ana.digest Anaerobic Digester Wind w/storage Wind energy with 10% battery storage LF Liquid Fuels, i.e. heavy fuel oil, diesel & Jet A1 NG Natural Gas RE Renewable Energy 5

6 Decision Hierarchy Goal Optimum Expansion Plan World Demand Growth 1. High (3.7%); 2. Base (1.3%); 3. Low (-0.4%) Criteria NPV Fuel Diversity Env. Impact Achievability Gas Int. Cost For.Ex. Impact CO2 Water Use Land Use Scenarios/ Alternatives Scenarios 1. LF+RE; 2. LF+RE+NG; 3. LF+RE+NGr; 4. LF+REf+NGr 6

7 IRP Decision Analysis Overview Define the set of alternatives to be ranked 12 Alternative Least-cost Plans: 3 demand worlds x 4 fuel mix scenarios Define criteriaused to evaluate and rank the alternatives NPV, Fuel Diversity, ForEx, CO2, Water, Land Use, Achievability, Gas Interruption Cost Scoreeach criteria for each alternative Criteria Achievement Table Review criteria weightsand preferences Convert measures to common units ( utility ) Define relative importance of the criteria Rankalternatives and select best option Rank alternatives according to overall score Review effect of uncertainty on ranking results 7

8 Worlds & Scenarios 3 worlds defined based on electricity demand High Demand (3.7% avg. annual growth) Base Demand (1.3% avg. annual growth) Low Demand (-0.4% avg. annual growth) 4 scenarios evaluated in each world: Scenario 1: LF+RE Scenario 2: LF+RE+NG Scenario 3: LF+RE+NGres. Scenario 4: LF+REfor.+NGres. 1 Liquid Fuel (LF) Natural Gas (NG) x Renewable Energy (RE) Gas Turbines 2 x x Notes 1. In this scenario the model is forced to install 29% RE by NGres. -Gas turbines excluded in scenarios 3 & 4 due to high gas interruption cost 8

9 Demand Worlds 9

10 Demand Worlds DSM and Distributed RE evaluation 10

11 Key Assumptions Economic Assumptions All cost estimates in real 2012 BDS $ Real Discount Rate: 7% Low 6% High 8% Currency and exchange rates: 1 US$ = 2.0 BDS $ 1 GB = 3.5 BDS $ Economic growth rate is projected to average 2.4% over forecast period High Case 3.4% Low Case 1.4% Local tax levies and duties not included System Assumptions Minimum Reserve Margin: 32% 24 hours per year LOLP Minimum Generation Spinning Reserve: 5 Largest generating unit: 20% projected peak demand Maximum Intermittent RE: 10% projected peak demand Fuel Price Base Case Projections for 2016 (WTI crude oil Diesel: $49 per mmbtu HFO: $38 per mmbtu Nat. Gas: $28 per mmbtu ($16 fixed + $12 variable; 22 mmcfd) Biomass: $9 per mmbtu 11

12 Key Assumptions (cont d) Candidate Plant Liquid Cap. Cost BBD$/kW Fixed O&M BBD$/kW/Year Var O&M BBD$/h LSD17 2, MSD17 2, LSD30 2, GT20 2, CCGT30 3, Nat Gas NG-LSD17 3, NG-MSD17 2, NG-LSD30 3, NG-GT20 2, NG-CCGT30 3, Renewables Anaerobic Digestion 15, Biomass 8, Landfill Gas 6, Solar 7, Waste to Energy 21,500 1, Wind 6, Wind with Storage 8,

13 Year Net Present Value Analysis (sample) Capital Expenditure Bds $'000 Rciprocating Engines Gas Turbines Renewables Total Capex Fuel Operating Cost Bds $ '000 HFO Diesel Jet A1 Biomass Fixed Variable Total Operating Cost Total Cost Bds $' ,216 26, ,717 26,128 23, , , ,329 22, ,805 26,057 22, , , ,734 24, ,336 26,057 22, , , ,850 27, ,064 26,057 23, , , ,972-77, , ,360 3, ,858 26,132 14, , , ,622 23, ,277 3, ,760 26,730 14, , , , , , , ,493 32,980 12, , , , , , , ,165 28,947 12, , , , , ,449 29,026 12, , , ,511 1,349-18, ,097 28,947 12, , , ,238 2,147-18, ,825 28,412 12, , , ,897 3,404-18, ,893 28,412 13, , , ,978 5,210-18, ,990 28,490 13, , , , , , , ,608 30,349 13, , , ,372-62, , , ,815 31,155 13, , , ,090 1,788-19, ,020 30,941 13, , , ,372-62, ,607 3,498-19, ,456 31,620 14, , , ,975 6,143-19, ,643 31,534 15, , , , , , , ,414 33,684 14, , , ,559 1,882-19, ,366 33,684 15, , , ,471 19, ,113 3,094-20, ,382 34,905 15, , , ,471 19, ,583 4,630-20, ,495 35,934 16, , , , , , , ,298 38,085 16, , , , , ,523 38,085 16, , , ,943-43, , ,849 3,765-20, ,509 36,711 17, ,735 1,094,055 NPV 7% 467,829 3,496, , ,232 3,730, , ,392 4,263,237 4,731,065 Total Fuel O&M 13

14 NPV Results & Sensitivity Analysis 14

15 Evaluation Criteria Net Present Value (NPV) Foreign Exchange Impact CO2 produced Water Use Land Use Fuel Diversity Measure of how evenly distributed liquid fuels, natural gas, biomassandresourcesareinenergymix Gas Interruption Cost Fuel cost impact of a one year interruption in natural gas supply Achievability of plan Measure of the ability and capacity to implement plan, e.g. plans that are dependent on large numbers of participants and agreements score lower 15

16 Criteria Achievement Table Worlds Scenarios NPV ($000) Base High Low Foreign Exchange ($000) Achievability 2017 Gas Interruption Cost ($000) C02 (million Water (million Land Use Fuel MT) Ga) (acres) Diversity LQ + RE 4,718,007 17,874 2, % 4,192,718 High LQ + RE + NG 4,003,169 13,513 4, % 3,696,372 Medium 102,410 LQ + RE + NGr 4,242,772 15, % 3,856,238 Medium 59,236 LQ + REf + NGr 4,539,107 12,614 2,948 1, % 3,928,066 Low 43,345 LQ + RE 6,533,100 27,677 2, % 5,906,882 High LQ + RE + NG 5,370,996 13,847 6, % 4,721,986 Medium LQ + RE + NGr 5,647,944 24,273 1, % 5,084,604 Medium LQ + REf + NGr 6,009,076 20,751 4,646 1, % 4,987,311 Low LQ + RE 3,743,509 12,674 2, % 3,263,432 High LQ + RE + NG 3,527,547 10,785 3, % 3,267,055 Medium LQ + RE + NGr 3,691,844 11, % 3,370,626 Medium LQ + REf + NGr 3,890,652 9,506 2, % 3,372,432 Low 16

17 Ranking of Scenarios 17

18 2016 LevelisedGenerator BusbarCosts 18

19 Recommended Plan Gas is currently unavailable. The timeline for its availability remains uncertain. Short-term expansion based on the second ranked scenario ( Liquid Fuel + Renewable Energy ) is therefore recommended with the following adjustments: Biomass is an attractive opportunity at the prices modeled. However, the organisation of the many stakeholders and project components is likely to take more than 3 years. In addition to the 47 selected in 2016 in the Liquid Fuel + RE plan, an additional 13 of reciprocating capacity is recommended, with biomass plant installation by The conventional generating units installed in the Liquid Fuel + Renewable Energy scenario will be capable of conversion to gas operation when gas becomes available. NPV of recommended plan: $4.731 Billion 19

20 IRP Plans for Base World Year GWh Retirement Sched S1, S2 40 RECOMMENDED PLAN Liquid + RE Gas Gas (restricted) High RE GT02 13 LSD30 2 x 30 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 Wind 10 x L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 Wind 2 x ,000 D10, D11, D12, Biomass 1 x 25 D13 50 WH LSD30 1 x 30 LSD17 1 x 17 Biomass 1 x 25 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 Wind 10 x 1 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 Wind 2 x ,010 LSD17 2 x 17 LSD30 1 x 30 NG-CCGT30 3 x 30 NG-GT30 1 x 30 NG-LSD30 2 x 30 NG-MSD17 3 x 17 NG-LSD30 1 x 30 NG-MSD17 3 x 17 NG-LSD17 1 x 17 Biomass 1 x ,021 LSD17 1 x 17 NG-LSD17 1 x ,034 GT03 13 Wind 6 x 1 L/fill Gas Gas 1 x ,049 Wind 10 x 1 L/fill Gas Gas 1 x ,066 Wind 1 x 1 20

21 Year GWh Retirement Sched. RECOMMENDED PLAN Liquid + RE Gas Gas (restricted) High RE ,085 GT04 20 Wind 1 x ,108 GT05 20 LSD17 1 x 17 LSD17 1 x 17 NG-CCGT30 1 x 30 NG-MSD17 1 x 17 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 LSD17 1 x 17 Ana. digestion 1 x ,134 GT06 20 GT30 1 x 30 GT30 1 x 30 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 NG-MSD17 1 x 17 Wind 1 x ,159 GT30 1 x 30 GT30 1 x 30 NG-GT30 1 x 30 LSD30 1 x 30 LSD17 1 x 17 Wind 2 x ,187 GT30 1 x 30 LSD17 1 x 17 LSD17 1 x 17 Solar 3 x 1 Ana. digestion 1 x ,216 NG-LSD17 1 x 17 Wind 3 x 1 Solar 10 x 1 Waste to Energy 1 x ,245 LSD17 1 x 17 LSD17 1 x 17 Solar 2 x 1 Imp Biomass 1 x ,273 Solar 1 x ,301 Ana. Digestion 1 x Ana. Digestion 1 x NG-CCGT40 1 x 40 NG-MSD17 1 x ,327 Ana. Digestion 1 x 1.25 Ana. Digestion 1 x 1.25 L/fill Gas 1 x ,350 LSD17 1 x 17 LSD17 1 x 17 L/fill Gas 1 x ,370 D14, D15 60 Retire Retire Wind 7 x 1 Ana. digestion 1 x 1.25 Wind 10 x 1 Wind 10 x 1 WH L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 Wind w/storage 1 x ,388 LSD30 1 x 30 LSD17 1 x 17 Wind 5 x 1 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 LSD30 1 x 30 LSD17 1 x 17 Wind 5 x 1 L/fill Gas 1 x 1.5 NG-CCGT40 1 x 40 Wind 5 x 1 NG-LSD30 2 x 30 Solar 1 x 1 Solar 1 x 1 Solar 1 x 1 NG-LSD30 2 x 30 21

22 Generation by Energy Source for Recommended Plan Year Anearobic Digestion Landfill Gas Wind Biomass New Gas Turbines New LSD & MSD Gas Turbine Cogen LSD Steam 22 Energy (GWh)

23 Generation Energy Source by Plan Anearobic Digestion Wind Landfill Gas Solar Waste to Energy Imp Biomass Biomass New GT & CCGT New LSD & MSD - Recommended Liquid + RE Gas Gas (restricted) High RE Liquid + RE Gas Gas (restricted) High RE Liquid + RE Gas Gas (restricted) High RE % of net generation 23 Base High Low

24 System Reliability LOLE (%) LOLE Target Capacity Reserve Margin (%) LOLE (%) Capacity Reserve Margin (%) Year 24

25 Next Steps Submission of stakeholder comments Feb. 12 th 2013 Complete and submit IRP report to FTC for approval Q Issue final IRP report to stakeholders Q Complete DSM and Intermittent RE Penetration Studies - Q