HEAT RATES FOR USE IN DETERMINING CAMPUS ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Similar documents
Energy Trust Electric and Gas Avoided Cost Update for Oregon for 2018 Measure and Program Planning

THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF GAS FIRED GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA

Setting the Energy Bid Floor

ELECTRIC COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN STUDY

Marin Clean Energy Applicant Analysis for the County of Napa

CHP Economic Factors: Electric and Natural Gas Market Trends PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: DATE:

CCA Terms Glossary. Valley Clean Energy Alliance. i CCA Terms Glossary

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF UTILITY COMPANIES, AND DEVELOPMENT OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet

Measuring Electricity Class Activity

2016 Fall Reliability Conference MRO

APPENDIX B: WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICE FORECAST

MH s Draft of Application for Approval of Energy Intensive Industrial Rate, Tab 1

Energy-Environment Relationship: How Much Does Environmental Regulation Affect Investment in Energy Infrastructure?

Acreage Needed in 2050 for Renewable Generation to Meet California s GHG Emission Reduction Goals California Energy Commission May 9, 2011

Client Name/Presentation Title

Bank of America Corporation Estimated economic benefits of the Environmental Business Initiative September 2017

EA July 11, 2017

Reading Utility Bills

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY AND EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS AT TEACHERS MUTUAL BANK LTD

Generation in Germany under Decarbonisation: The German Energiewende Bangkok, November 2013

Measuring School Electronics Energy at Work 1

AEP Ohio. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) May 24 th, 2017 Steve Giles Vice President Alternative Energy Hull & Associates, Inc.

Renewable Portfolio Standards

DISTRIBUTION LOSS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ESB SUBMISSION THE COMMISSION FOR ELECTRICITY REGULATION

Rate Design and Resource Planning

Lakeland Electric and the Orlando Utilities Commission should retire the C.D. McIntosh Unit 3 coal-fired power plant in the near future.

Coal Low Cost Fuel for the Future

The Promises and Challenges Facing Renewable Electric Power Generation

FACTS INFORMATION GENERAL LEGEND HIGHLIGHTS FINANCIAL FIBER OPTIC ELECTRIC & NATURAL GAS WASTEWATER FACTS WATER & NUMBERS PHONE.

BENCHMARKING & DISCLOSURE REPORT

Electricity Markets. Rapid Conference May 17, Mike Rencheck Rencheck Consulting LLC

Summary of Net Metered Projects as of June 30, Small Net Metered Projects as of 6/30/2016 Small Group Host Projects as of 6/30/2016

INCENTIVES FOR ROOFTOP RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PV

PGE s 2013 Integrated Resource Plan

DATA ASSUMPTIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES TO BE PERFORMED 2014 EGSL & ELL Integrated Resource Plans

Ameren Illinois Real-Time System Loss Analysis

BILLING FORMULA FOR CUSTOMERS THAT SELL ELECTRICITY TO BC HYDRO PURSUANT TO AN ELECTRICITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH A CONTRACTED GBL

PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING SYSTEMS

Regional Coordination in the West: Benefits of PacifiCorp and California ISO Integration

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 8

Cost Development Guidelines

IV. Energy Use Strategies

New England Electricity Outlook

Maximizing Consumer Value Through Dynamic Pricing: A Suggested Approach for Regulators

Rocky Mountain Power Docket No Witness: Joelle R. Steward BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF UTAH ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER

LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS FOR NEW YORK S CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

January 3, 2018 MEMORANDUM. Council Members. John Ollis, Power System Analyst. SUBJECT: Marginal Carbon Emissions Rate Study Draft BACKGROUND:

Availability and Costs of Supply-Side Electricity Options

Independent Power Production Policy

Modeling Distributed Generation Adoption Using Electric Rate Feedback Loops

sg

The Husker Power Plan: A New Energy Plan for Nebraska

2015 GHG Emissions Report

Engaging consumers in a decarbonized world with the right pricing

South Africa s Grid Emission Factor

Dynamic Price, Product and Messaging Specification

Energy Report - February 2008

British Columbia Utilities Commission Information Request No Dated: April 4, 2005 BC Hydro Response issued April 22, 2005

Belgium Energy efficiency report

Components of an Ontario Residential Electricity Bill March 13, 2014

B3 Benchmarking. B3 Building Benchmarking. Program Overview.

Electric Power from Sun and Wind

Wolf Penn Net Zero Demonstration Home Drew Benado Greg Davenport Krisann Parks

ECONOMIC TRENDS OF ITALIAN ELECTRICITY SECTOR SHORT TERMS STATISTICS

Tackling Tariff Design. Making distribution network costs work for consumers

MTEP18 Futures. Planning Advisory Committee June 14, 2017

Building a Profitable Wind Business

JEA s Renewable Program

Industrial GreenPrint. Become a Strategic Manager of Your Energy Resources

Generation Technology Options in a Carbon- Constrained World

Innovations in Energy Efficiency Transmission & Distribution Advances Helping to Meet Energy Demands of 21st Century

Belgium Energy efficiency report

COGENERATION: Opportunities in Today s Power Markets

Further Analyses of the Exercise and Cost Impacts of Market Power In California s Wholesale Energy Market

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS ISE

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF SUB METERING ON MULTI RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON ONTARIO

Comparison of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Programs in PJM States

New England States Committee on Electricity

4.1 Where does your electricity come from? (Word Processor, internet)

Energy Study. Commercial Custom Design Program Retrofit Projects. November 2014

Electricity Prices in the Tennessee Valley

Trends in renewable energy and storage

Automatic Meter Reading

RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION COSTS IN 2014

Challenges for the US Electric Distribution System: Opportunities for CMU

Energex. Tariff Structure Statement. 1 July 2017 to 30 June Energex s Tariff Structure Statement

Tariffs January 1, 2017

MEMORANDUM. January 6, Power Committee. Maury Galbraith. Draft Sixth Plan Electricity Price Forecasts

WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION. P.S.C.W. Volume No. 7 1st Rev. Sheet No. E7.00 Replaces Original Sheet No. E7.00

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OF SMALL CUSTOMERS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Zero Net Carbon Portfolio Analysis

Improving the way we price our network services. Consultation paper

SoCalGas ENVOY. Reports User Guide

Final report. Solar feed-in tariff for regional Queensland for

Role of clean energy in the context of Paris Agreement

Utility Details. Annual Revenues of $14 million. Capital Assets of $21 million. Sales growth 15-20% per annum. 30 Employees

L.D. Carter For USCSC

PJM Manual 27: Open Access Transmission Tariff Accounting Revision: 88 Effective Date: November 16, 2017

VTWAC Project: Demand Forecasting

Transcription:

HEAT RATES FOR USE IN DETERMINING CAMPUS ENERGY CONSUMPTION Overview of Issue: U.C. Davis has issued a draft report documenting energy use at its campus since 1995. The report s findings indicate that total energy use at the campus in FY2012-13 is lower than campus energy use in 1995. Total energy use at U.C. Davis includes both natural gas and electricity. To facilitate comparison of these two commodities, electricity (kwh) and natural gas (therm) usage are converted to a common energy unit, in this case MMBtu. The conversion of electricity (kwh) to MMBtu requires an appropriate heat rate. This document describes the recommended heat rates for use in converting electricity kwh to MMBtu and the rationale for the recommendation. This narrative is organized as follows: Section 1 provides the rationale. Section 2 provides potential heat rate calculation methodologies. Section 3 provides results based on U.C. Davis s historical electricity sources. Section 1: Rationale for E3 Recommendation E3 recommends use of the source energy conversion factors. The rationale for this recommendation is given in this section. The U.C. Davis campus consumes natural gas and electricity. Over time, the proportion of natural gas use has declined while electricity use has increased. Electricity use is typically billed in kilowatt hours (kwh). Natural gas use is typically billed in therms. Because the proportion of each commodity has changed over time, the campus electricity and natural gas consumption must be converted to a common unit in order to analyze overall energy use trends. U.C. Davis has selected millions of British thermal units (MMBtu) as this common unit. The conversion of electricity (kwh) to MMBtu requires a heat rate. Determination of this heat rate depends on whether site or source energy is measured. Site energy measures energy consumption at the site meter without taking into consideration the efficiency of the power plants that generated 16 October 2013

the electricity or any transmission and distribution losses. The site energy factor converting electricity kwh to MMBtu is 3,413 Btu/kWh. Source energy measures energy consumption to the source from which power is generated. Accordingly, the source electricity measurement not only considers the heat rate of the power plants generating electricity but also transmission and distribution losses incurred in transmitting electricity to the customer meter. Similarly, the source natural gas measurement incorporates transportation losses. Determining the appropriate Source energy heat rate is not trivial. To do so involves determining the system average heat rate over a given time period - an extremely complex exercise. It is understandable that the University of California Facilities Management Measurement Definitions express electricity in MMBtu via the site conversion factor of 3,413 Btu/kWh. However, presenting usage data in terms of site rather than source energy can produce irreconcilable results. For example, the site energy of a thermal generation facility would be measured in terms of its natural gas consumption. The billed natural gas consumption of such a facility is driven by the plant heat rate, roughly 7,000 Btu/kWh. However, if the same facility were located off-campus, the site energy would be measured in terms of electricity kwh at the campus meter via a heat rate of 3,413 Btu/kWh. Thus, the MMBtu energy consumption of the same facility is under-estimated if the site calculation is used. The source calculation would utilize the facility heat rate of roughly 7,000 Btu/kWh for both the on- and off-campus configurations. The off-campus source calculation would also include transmission and distribution losses. Similarly, the appropriate conversion factor for retail natural gas usage also depends on whether source or site energy is considered. Natural gas usage is typically billed in therms. The therm to MMBtu conversion factor is 10. No adjustment to this conversion factor is required for site energy calculations. For source energy calculations, a gas transportation loss factor of 9.2% should be included, yielding a conversion factor of 10.92%. In summary, E3 recommends use of source energy calculations. For natural gas, source energy includes the transportation losses incurred in delivering gas to the on-campus site. For electricity, such calculations incorporate the heat rates of the assets generating electricity as well as transmission and distribution loss factors. Using site rather than source conversion factors will under-estimate the amount of energy represented by a kwh of electricity. This under-estimation is magnified if Page 2 of 6

the proportion of U.C. Davis s electricity usage has grown over time, potentially resulting in a misrepresentation of overall campus energy use over time. Section 2: Recommended s The system average and marginal heat rates vary over time depending on factors including demand and generation technology mix. In years with ample supply of hydro generation, the marginal and system heat rates will be relatively low. Similarly, as more renewable generation is added to the system, the marginal and system heat rates will decline. E3 s recommended heat rates attempt to strike a balance between the need for simplicity while also incorporating these temporal impacts. Two potential approaches are described below, (1) High Bookend method and (2) Simplified System Average method. High Bookend Method: NP-15 Marginal The NP-15 marginal heat rate can be easily calculated from day-ahead energy prices according to the formula [energy price ($/MWh) variable O&M ($/MWh)] * 1000 / natural gas cost ($/MMBtu). While the attraction of this approach is its simplicity, it does not take into account the balance of generators with heat rates less than the marginal unit s. Hence, this approach over-estimates the fuel consumed for each kwh of electricity. If the proportion of electricity has increased over time and if this calculation method results in an overall decline in campus usage, then to be sure overall campus energy usage has declined. The NP-15 marginal heat rates are provided in Table 1 below. Heat rates for 1995-1997, when market data is not available, have been estimated as the average of 2002-2003 marginal heat rates. Table 1 heat rates have been grossed up by a 7% transmission and distribution loss factor for the source energy calculation. Note that heat rates in 2000-2001 reflect the California energy crisis and have been excluded from the overall average calculation. Page 3 of 6

Table 1: NP-15 Marginal s NP-15 MARGINAL HEAT RATES (Btu/kWh) Year HLH LLH AVERAGE 1995 9,298 6,575 8,132 1996 9,298 6,575 8,132 1997 9,298 6,575 8,132 1998 15,594 9,217 12,862 1999 15,196 8,640 12,388 2000 26,415 17,326 22,508 2001 16,408 12,757 14,845 2002 9,796 6,483 8,377 2003 9,073 6,505 7,973 2004 9,026 6,738 8,047 2005 8,369 5,970 7,342 2006 8,997 5,788 7,617 2007 9,911 6,876 8,611 2008 9,570 7,096 8,511 2009 9,352 6,531 8,143 2010 8,728 6,326 7,699 2011 8,246 4,578 6,675 2012 9,977 6,520 8,491 2013 9,157 7,336 8,375 Average 8,559 Simplified System Average Method The system average heat rate calculation requires the heat rate of each generator and its output over a given time period. This information is not readily available. E3 proposes a simplified system average method for calculating the annual system average heat rate for U.C. Davis energy usage as shown in Table 2 below. Page 4 of 6

Table 2: Simplified System Average Calculation A = B = Supply Source (kwh) C = Simplified System Average (Btu/kWh) Base Resource 0 Btu/kWh A * B WAPA Custom Product Annual NP-15 A * B average marginal heat rates (Table 1) Solar PV 0 Btu/kWh A * B PG&E retail PG&E simplified system average heat rate (4,700 Btu/kWh) A * B = Sum(column C) / Sum(Column A) The data required for these calculations are readily available. UC Davis tracks monthly kwh data by supply source. Table 1 provides the NP-15 average marginal heat rates for each year. The only remaining data point that is required for this calculation is the PG&E simplified system average heat rate, the derivation of which is provided below. To derive the PG&E simplified system average heat rate, E3 utilized PG&E data and 2008 generator data in E3 s Greenhouse Gas Model. The average portion of thermal energy supplying PG&E load is 50%. The remaining sources (nuclear, hydro, renewables) have heat rates of 0 Btu/kWh. Based on these values, E3 recommends a PG&E simplified system heat rate of 4,708 Btu/kWh, which can be rounded to 4,700 Btu/kWh. This result is summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3: PG&E Simplified System Average A = Average PG&E Percentage of Thermal Generation B = Average NP-15 Marginal Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) C = PG&E System Scalar 50% 8,560 1.10 4,708 D = A * B * C PG&E Simplified System Average (Btu/kWh) Page 5 of 6

Section 3: Results Applying the Simplified System Average methodology described in Table 2, Table 4 below shows the annual (calendar year) average heat rate results for use in converting electric kwh usage to source MMBtu for each year. These heat rates assume that cogen energy consumption is tracked separately via natural gas use. Table 4: Final heat rates for use in converting electricity kwh to source MMBtu Year (Btu/kWh) 1993 5,822 1994 5,490 1995 4,478 1996 5,370 1997 5,397 1998 7,930 1999 7,852 2000 9,428 2001 9,810 2002 5,423 2003 5,281 2004 5,994 2005 6,312 2006 5,072 2007 7,466 2008 7,427 2009 7,204 2010 6,638 2011 5,268 2012 7,068 2013 6,745 Page 6 of 6