Download - Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

Transcript
Page 1: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

Southwest Power PoolSouthwest Power PoolITP-20 Generating ResourcesITP-20 Generating Resources

May 25, 2010

Page 2: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 2

Agenda

Study Purpose and Scope

Study Approach

Resources Considered

Base Case Results

Questions

Page 3: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 3

Study Purpose and Work Scope

Phase I. Develop resource plans for each of four future scenarios, as defined by the SPP System Planning Committee, to be used in the ITP Year 20 EHV analysis. The resources will be selected using an optimal generation expansion model, Strategist, configured to provide resource planning solutions on a regional basis. The resource list will be generic prototype generators representing available future resources.

Phase II. Spatially located the new resources within SPP with the aid of GIS databases showing locations of transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, railroads, waterways, substations, etc.

Phase III. The new generators will be entered into a PowerBase database and connected to buses in the transmission system. The information entered into the PowerBase will be used by SPP in future studies.

Page 4: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 4

Study Approach

Page 5: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 5

Review of Study Approach

Used Powerbase data model provided by SPP.

Developed capital cost and performance estimates for future candidate units.

Developed Annual Levelized Fixed Charge Rates to apply to capital cost estimated to account for financing costs, insurance, taxes, etc

Updated data model based on feedback from stakeholders.

Developed renewable energy build-out scenario.

SPP footprint divided into two areas due to model limits.

Developed least cost generation expansion using Ventyx Strategist.

Page 6: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 6

Topology Review SPP footprint broken down into two sub-regions because of

Strategist dimension limits.

Initial attempt was to model the entire SPP in one model with 2 zones. But, encountered Strategist dimension limit.

SPP footprint modeled using two separate Strategist models for 2 sub-regions: SPP North (SPPN) and SPP South (SPPS)

Approximate dividing line – Kansas-Oklahoma State line

200 MW of capacity flow from SPPS to SPPN was allowed until SPPS was not excess on capacity to meet their own load and reserve requirements.

Page 7: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 7

SPP North (SPPN) Control AreasSPP North (SPPN) Control Areas

Greater Missouri Operations Company.

Independence Power and Light

Kansas City BPU

KCP&L

Westar Energy

Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Lincoln Electric System

NPPD

OPPD

City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Empire District Electric Company.

MKE

MWE

Page 8: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 8

SPP South (SPPS) Control Areas

• AEP West

• OG&E

• Western Farmers Electric Co-operative

• Southwestern Public Service Company

• Central Louisiana Electric Company

• City of Lafayette

• Louisiana Energy and Power Authority

• GRDA

• Southwestern Power Administration

Page 9: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 9

Economic Inputs – Development of Fixed Charge Rate Used a proprietary Black & Veatch model for development of FCR

Fixed Charge Rate (FCR) is used to estimate the annual capital carrying cost for new plants and for new capital improvements done on existing plants.

A levelized fixed charge rate is a single, uniform rate that is applied to a unit’s total installed capital cost to yield the revenue requirements needed to recover cost on a present value basis. FCR varies depending upon various economic and financial assumptions.

Black & Veatch model develops different FCR for IOU, and Municipal and Cooperative (M&C) utilities.

Blended FCR calculated for SPP to account for different types of LSE in SPP. Assumed an 80/20 mix of generating resources additions by IOUs/M&C.

Technology dependent unit lives were assumed for FCR calculations: peaking (20 years), combined cycle (25 years), coal/nuclear (30 Years), and wind (5 year tax life, assumes not M&C financed).

Page 10: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 10

Fixed Charge RateAssumptions for IOU Assumptions for Municipalities

and Cooperatives D/E ratio of 55:45

7 percent cost of debt and 12 percent cost of equity

39 percent effective tax rate and 0.5 percent adder for insurance and property taxes

20 tax life

20 year FCR – 13.83 %

25 year FCR – 12.74 %

Fully debt financed and tax exempted

5.5 percent bond financing rate

0.5 percent adder for insurance and property taxes

20 year debt life FCR – 8.87 %

25 year debt life FCR – 7.96 %

Blended 20 year FCR and 25 year book life FCRs for SPP

is 12.84% and 11.79% respectively.

Page 11: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 11

Additional FCR Calculations

Calculated a single FCR for renewable resources assuming 5 year tax life and 20 year book life. Assumed all investors are

taxable due to preferential depreciation status

11.53% Calculated a blended FCR for

coal and nuclear resources assuming 20 year tax life and 30 year book life. 11.51%

Technology Tax Life (years)

Book Life

(years)

Blended FCR (%)

Combustion Turbine

20 20 12.84

Combined Cycle

20 25 11.79

Coal and Nuclear

20 30 11.51

Wind 5 20 11.53

(not blended)

Page 12: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 12

Generating Resources Considered

Page 13: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 13

Cost & Operating Assumptions for Conventional Alternatives

Asset Type Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Nuclear Coal

Steam

Model Designation1x1

7FA.052x1

7FA.05 7FA.05 LM6000LMS100P

A AP1000SCPC (PRB)

Generation Fuel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas uranium CoalStart Fuel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas n/a GasTotal installed Cost (including Owner's Cost and IDC, $000s) 440,000 710,000 160,000 60,000 130,000 9,000,000 2,520,000Total installed Cost (including Owner's Cost and IDC, $/kW) 1,571 1,291 889 1,594 1,820 7,826 3,150Summer Ratings[Summer = 95F] Capacity (average degradation, MW) 280 550 180 38 71 1150 800 Heat Rate (degraded, HHV, Btu/kWh) 7,000 6,970 10,400 10,000 12,340 10,680 9,610Winter Ratings[Winter = 20 F] Capacity (average degradation, MW) 304 617.5 210 45 96 1150 800 Heat Rate (degraded, HHV, Btu/kWh) 6,960 6,930 10,080 9,460 8,950 10,680 9,610Variable O&M ($/MWh) 4.00 4.00 16.00 3.70 3.30 0 2.10Variable O&M ($/MWh) without MM 1.00 1.00 0.80Fixed O&M ($/kW-year) 8.10 6.90 6.80 12.50 18.50 60.00 26.50Maintenance Rate (hours per year) 444 444 168 168 168 500 438Forced Outage Rate (hours per year) 263 263 175 175 175 306 438Ramp Rate (%/minute) 5% 5% 18% 18% 18% 6% 6%Start Costs Cash Start Costs ($/start) 500 1,000 250 25 50 n/a 35,000 Cash Start Costs ($/start) incl MM 14,000 28,000 13,750 Fuel Start Costs (MMBtu start fuel/start) 1,100 1,900 250 26 44 n/a 22,800 CO2 Emission Rates (lbs/mmbtu) 115 115 115 115 115 0 210 SO2 Emission Rates (lbs/mmbtu) 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0 0.1 NOx Emission Rates (lbs/mmbtu) 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0 0.07 Hg Emission Rates (lbs/mmbtu) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3E-06

Page 14: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 14

Different Conventional Prototypes Modeled in Strategist

2x1 Generic Combined Cycle with maximum capacity of about 600 MW

800 MW Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit without CCS

1100 MW Nuclear Unit

Baseload Resources

Generic frame CT with maximum capacity of about 200 MW

Peaking Resources

In addition, wind resources for meeting RPS requirements were added.

Page 15: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 15

Addition of Wind Resources

Wind Resource addition based on the Futures for Integrated Transmission Planning Process year 20 Assessment, Revision 3.

Business as Usual (Base case) wind additions assumes no RES requirements (as per Appendix 1 of the aforementioned document)

42,000 GWh of renewable generation is achieved by 2020 for the whole SPP area

At 40 percent capacity factor, this equates to about 11.9 GW of nameplate capacity

Capacity value (Firm Capacity) of wind resources is assumed to be 5 percent of the name plate capacity.

Wind resources capital cost assumed to be $2,150/kw (2010 dollars)

Operating costs of wind resources assumed to be $51/kw-year.

All new wind resources to meet RPS are expected to be online by 2020.

Page 16: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 16

Wind Resources (Total New plus Existing) by Year

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Year

Na

me

pla

te C

ap

ac

ity

(M

W)

Wind Capacity (New and Existing) By Year

Page 17: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 17

Other Key Assumptions

Model run for 20 years (2011-2030, inclusive)

No potential CO2 taxes considered for the base case

Coal PRB price forecast – No change to Ventyx forecast.

NG price forecast – HH forecast from Ventyx. Basis differentials updated base on SPP stakeholder feedback.

Uranium prices – Ventyx forecast updated based on stakeholder feedback.

Units are allowed to be added in intervals of 2/3 years, with the intervals increasing from 2 years to 4 years as we move further out into the study period.

200 MW of capacity is allowed to flow from SPPS to SPPN from 2010-2022 as SPPS has excess capacity at this time.

Page 18: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 18

EWITS and WWSIS data

Mesoscale modeled data

Modeled years are 2004, 2005, 2006

Used year 2005 profile because that year was judged as the best representative year.

10 minute data translated into 8760 hourly observations

Information presented in capacity factor (%) units

Profiles scaled accordingly to incorporate additional capacity factor information from actual project data

Wind Profile Data Collection Methodology

Page 19: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 19

Base Case Results

Page 20: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 20

Reserve Margin with No New Units – NPPN (Preliminary)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Year

Cap

acit

y (M

W)

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Res

erve

Mar

gin

(%

)

Existing Capacity RM Before Expansion FINAL PEAK

Page 21: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 21

Reserve Margin with No New Units – SPPN (Preliminary)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,00020

11

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Year

Cap

acit

y (M

W)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Res

erve

Mar

gin

(%

)

Existing Capacity RM Before Expansion FINAL PEAK

Page 22: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 22

Reserve Margin with No New Units – Whole SPP (Preliminary)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,0002011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Year

Cap

acit

y (

MW

)

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Reserv

e M

arg

in (

%)

Existing Capacity RM Before Expansion FINAL PEAK

Page 23: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 23

Expansion Plan – NPPN (Preliminary)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2011-2014 2015-2018 2019-2022 2023-2026 2027-2030

Period

Ca

pa

cit

y A

dd

ed

(M

W)

CC CT Coal Nuclear

Page 24: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 24

Expansion Plan – SPPN (Preliminary)

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2011-2014 2015-2018 2019-2022 2023-2026 2027-2030

CC CT Coal Nuclear

Page 25: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 25

CO2 Emissions Intensity – SPPN and SSPP (Preliminary)

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

2,100

2,200

2,300

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

Year

(lb

s/M

Wh

)

Page 26: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 26

Reserve Margin with New Units – (Preliminary)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

NSPP SSPP Whole SPP

Page 27: Southwest Power Pool ITP-20 Generating Resources May 25, 2010.

February 10, 2010

B&V - 27

Base Case Results Observations

SPP North requires capacity additions early: 2014

SPP South requires capacity late: 2024

As wind resources are added in SPPN between 2013-2020, new baseload resources not justified. Lower capital cost intermediate and peaking units are added in this period.

Baseload resources are added in SPPN after 2020 when energy needs increase but additional wind resources are not added in the model.

SPP South needs intermediate and new baseload resources for the base case in the later half of the study period.

As no carbon legislation is assumed in the base case, coal units are selected in the later half of the study.