2006 integrated resource plan - seattle.gov

2006 Integrated Resource Plan:Scenarios, Conservation, Resources

IRP Stakeholders GroupMarch 7, 2006

Seattle City Light IRPSeattle City Light IRP Stakeholders GroupStakeholders GroupMarch 7, 2006March 7, 2006

Agenda

Scenarios David Clement

Conservation Steve Lush

New Generating Resources Marilynn Semro

Discussion All


Analyzing Variability and Risk

Simulating Hydro Generation

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

GWh

Electric Power Horizons Scenarios

Global Energy Decisions


Terrorism & Turmoil

• Terrorist attacks constrain gas and oil imports and leads to global stagnation,and a U.S. recession, which is followed by sustained low economic growthwhere energy independence away from Middle East Oil and LNG imports iscritical. Little competition or retirement of generation capacity, extendedrecovery from overbuild, and utilities gain vis-à-vis IPPs in a businessenvironment where competition takes a backseat to energy independence.

Terrorist attacks on

U.S. and Int'l LNG and Oil

Facilities

Oil and natural gas prices

spike

Oil & natural

gas prices continue to rise as economy picks up

Market for new coal

plants begins to

look attractive

Terrorism fears cancel new nuclear construction

Energy Bill passes

Stock market collapses; recession

begins

Restructuring & deregulation come to halt; wave of IPP

bankruptcies

Alaskan pipeline

construction begins

Minimal coal retirements; first nuclear plant license

granted

Growing public

concern for coal

emissions

Fed gov't intiates programs promoting coal, renewables and nuclear; federal lands opened up

for exploration

High energy prices significantly

decrease economy's energy intensity

over time

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024


Green World

• Undeniable evidence of global warming leads to election of “green candidates,”passage of CO2 legislation, which is phased-in, and big push for renewableenergy and energy efficiency. Some competition and retirement of inefficient andhighly polluting plants, nuclear capacity added, but more emphasis placed onnatural gas.

Evidence of global

warming becomes

undeniable

"Green" presidential

candidate elected

Need for LNG cannot be met due to inadequate gasification

facilities

Higher environmental costs leads to

significant retire of coal generation

U. S. signs Kyoto

Protocol and

agrees to comply by

2018

Second wave of

coal plant retirements

Opposition to new nuclear slows

permitting

Energy Bill

passes Nationwide renewable portfolio

standards

Economy begins to slow from higher fuel

costs; energy

intensity industries

exit

CO2 legislation

passed with phased

enforcement starting in

2010

First new nuclear plant

license granted

Economy continues to decline First new

nuclear plant goes

on-line

Demand-side

technology advances improve energy

efficiency

Second new

nuclear plant goes

on-line

Over the time period energy intensity

decreases as result of higher prices and exist

of heavy industry

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024


Return to Reliability

• Natural disasters create transmission gridlocks that spread through theinterconnect system. Brownouts affect the WECC region creating concernsabout transmission and resource reliability. To address concerns, reliabilityprotocols are created increasing reserve margins for regions. Utilities andRTO’s are incented to build additional transmission lines to meet demand.

Reliability standards adopted

Mother Nature causes

w idespread transmission grid failure in

Eastern Interconnect

IPPs and vertically

integrated utilities halt construction

due to uncertainty

between states and

FERC

Restructuring sputters on

reliability fears

NERC regions initiate

reliability protocol

With RTOs dismantled

utilities invest in transmission infrastructure

Base load plant

additions preferred

over peaking

Energy Bill passes

State commissions fail to enforce

reliability standards

RTOs dismantled

Minimal coal retirement

Confidence restored; growth

begins to increase

Regular rolling brownouts due to decreased hydro and abnormal weather in WECC

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020


US Coal-Fired Generation

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

aMW

Green World Return to Reliability Terrorism and Turmoil Reference

Source: Global Energy DecisionsProprietary and confidential.


Conservation Resource: Potential Assessment Process

C PA


Conservation Resource: Analytical Framework Illustration

CharacterizeMarket and

EE Measures

Market Inputs

• CustomerForecast

• Fuel Shares

• End UseSaturations

• Baseline Use

MeasureInputs

• EnergySavings %or perUnit/EEM

• Costs

• LIfetimes

Feasible &Incomplete

Applications

PrepareBase CaseForecast

EstimateTechnicalPotential

EstimateAchievablePotential

MarketConstraints

EconomicConstraints

: see IRP

BundleResources

for IRP

ByCustomer

Group

ByEnd Use

ByPrice Point


Conservation Resource: Technical Potential Illustration

Total HousingUnits in Building

Stock350,000

Single-FamilySubsector

165,000

Multiplex (2-4)Subsector

18,000

Multifamily (5+)Subsector

168,000

Central HeatSystem

X 86.0%

Central HeatSystem

X 40.0%

Central HeatSystem

X 12.3%

Electric HeatFuel

X 8.1%

Electric HeatFuel

X 16.7%

Electric HeatFuel

X 45.3%

With End UseSaturation:

e.g.Central Heating

With SourceFuel Share:

e.g.Electricity

With FeasibleApplication ofE.E.Measure

E-Star Windows

InefficientWindows

X 75.0%

InefficientWindows

X 75.0%

InefficientWindows

X 75.0%

WithIncomplete

Penetration ofE.E.Measure

Energy StarWindows EEM

X 85.0%


X 95.1%


X 39.3%

Energy Savingsper Measure:Energy Star+

Windows

KWh WindowSavings

X 7,060X 16.9%

KWh WindowSavings

X 2,445X 26.8%

KWh WindowSavings

X 1,962X 26.8%

MWh SavingsPotential

= 8,743


= 562


= 1,451

Sum =10,755 MWh1.292 aMW


Conservation Resource: End Use & Price Point Bundle Illustration

ResidentialBuilding

Shell Heat

Bundle Under10 mills

(0-10)


(0-20)


(0-30)


(0-10)


(0-20)


(0-30)


(0-10)


(0-20)


(0-30)

ResidentialHot Water

ResidentialAppliances

ResidentialLighting &Electronics


(0-10)


(0-20)


(0-30)

Residential… New

Construction


(0-10)


(0-20)


(0-30)


(0-100)


(0-100)


(0-100)


(0-100)

• • •Bundle Under

100 mills

(0-100)

• • • • • • • • • • • •

New Generating ResourcesAssumptions & Costs


Coal— Pulverized (500 MW) - Montana/Wyoming— Integrated gasification combined cycle (565 MW) - W. WA

Natural Gas— Combined Cycle (500 MW) - W. WA— Simple Cycle (100 MW) - W. WA

Wind— Montana/Wyoming (100 MW)— Northwest (100 MW)

Geothermal— Binary (25 MW) - Northwest— Flash (25 MW) - Northwest

Landfill Gas - NorthwestBiomass

— 15 MW - W. WA— 50 MW - Northwest

New Generating ResourceOptions


Generation Graph $/MWh

Cost $/MWh

$0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00

SCCT

Biomass, Stoker

Wind 2 (East)

Wind 1(Northwest)

Biomass, Stoker

Coal, IGCC w/ Carbon Preparation

Geothermal, binary

CCCT (2x1, wet cooling, sea-level)

Geothermal, flash

Coal, IGCC

Coal, Pulverized

Landfill Gas

Gen

erat

ion

$/MWh

Cost $/MWh


Assumptions

• General– Capital Recovery Factor - Assumes Discount Rate 8% - applied

to all resources– No environmental adders– Assumes new 500 kV transmission @ $1.8m/mile, 2500 MW

ATC for Montana coal, CCCT, wind.– Assumes new transmission for IGCC, geothermal & biomass,

but cost does not exceed BPA’s transmission rate, thereforeuses BPA’s transmission rate + 2% losses.

• Pulverized Coal - 500 MW - Montana/Wyoming– Uses Power River Basin Coal 2016 coal price

• IGCC - 565 MW - W. WA– Uses W. WA Coal 2016 coal price


Assumptions (cont’d)

• CCCT - 500 MW - W. WA– Uses 2016 Sumas gas

• SCCT - 100 MW - W. WA– Uses 2016 Sumas gas– Assumes 15% usage (capacity factor)

• Wind - 100 MW - PNW & MT/WY– NW Wind assumes 27% capacity factor– Montana/Wyoming wind assumes 38% capacity factor– All costs are fixed– 0 fuel cost

• Geothermal and Landfill Gas– Shows all O&M costs as variable O&M– Fuel included in capital cost


Assumptions (continued)

• Biomass - 15 MW - W. WA– assumes 100% O&M is fixed– assumes fuel free

• Biomass - 50 MW - PNW– assumes 50% of fuel is purchased at $15/ton– assumes 50 mi transportation– assumes transportation at $0.30/mi/ton


Fixed & Variable Costs

DescriptionCapital Cost

$/kW-yrFixed O&M

$/kW-yrFuel

$/MWhVariable O&M

$/MWhCoal, Pulverized (500 MW) $1,450 $30 $6.28 $2.50Coal, IGCC (565 MW) $1,600 $35 $15.88 $2.50Coal, IGCC Carbon Ready $2,100 $47.50 $15.88 $3.00Natural Gas Combined Cycle $613 $10.00 $31.97 $2.85Natural Gas, Simple Cycle $500 $12.00 $43.02 $6.00Wind (Northwest) $1,350 $25.00Wind (Montana/Wyoming) $1,350 $25.00Geothermal, binary $2,000 $24Geothermal, flash $2,075 $21.50Landfill Gas $1,045 $18Biomass (15 MW) $2,476 $219.00Biomass (50 MW) $2,127 $80.00 $19.69 $27.34


Costs $/MWh

DescriptionCapacityFactor

Resources$/MWh

Transmission$/MWh

Total$/MWh

Coal, Pulverized (500 MW) 87% $28.00 $11.13 $39.12Coal, IGCC (565 MW) 86% $40.08 $1.93 $41.98Coal, IGCC Carbon Ready 86% $47.57 $1.93 $49.47Natural Gas, Combined Cycle 80% $43.47 $2.09 $45.55Natural Gas, Simple Cycle 15% $92.45 $10.90 $103.36Wind (Northwest) 27% $62.02 $7.58 $69.60Wind (Montana/Wyoming) 38% $44.07 $25.58 $69.64Geothermal, binary 93% $44.27 $1.79 $46.06Geothermal, flash 93% $42.53 $1.79 $44.32Landfill Gas 90% $29.33 $1.85 $31.18Biomass (15 MW) 90% $54.62 $1.85 $56.48Biomass (50 MW) 90% $99.93 $1.85 $101.78


Questions?

IRP Web Address: http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/irp/E-Mail: [email protected]

2006 integrated resource plan - seattle.gov

Documents