Integrated Regional Resource Plan Local Advisory Committee Meeting - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

GREENSTONE-MARATHON Integrated Regional Resource Plan

Local Advisory Committee Meeting #3 May 11-12, 2016

• Review of Action Items from LAC #2
• Summary of IRRP Findings and

Recommendations

– Updates to near-term plan – Medium and long-term discussion and recommendations

• Next Steps

Presentation Outline

2

3

LAC MEETING #2 ACTION ITEMS

Action Items Delivery Review timeline statements for in- service of the new 230 kV line from the last minutes Acknowledged in LAC #2 minutes Look into growth assumed by the LDC for new jobs associated with mining activity

• Approx. 0.85 kW coincident peak

demand per new person, or 1 MW for 1200 new people Share more details on available support programs Industrial Conservation Initiative: http://www.ieso.ca/Documents/settle ments/May_2015- ICI_Backgrounder.pdf Industrial Accelerator Program: http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Participate/I ndustrial-Accelerator- Program/default.aspx

LAC Meeting #2 Action Items

LAC Meeting #2 Action Items

5

Action Items Delivery Communicate to Hydro One the availability of First Nation Community growth Data Connected Joe Donio with Hydro One. Hydro One developing a process for First Nation communities to provide. Confirm which new mine and processing loads will be associated with Beardmore mine and where they will be located Approximately 5 MW near

• Beardmore. Detailed data is not

available at this stage in the mine development. Look into scenario where Geraldton mine uses self generation and Beardmore mine uses all capacity on A4L, and organic growth in Greenstone area associated with the Geraldton mine cannot be accommodated without upgrades. Approximately 20% additional load at Longlac TS under Scenario A can be accommodated without further upgrade.

LAC Meeting #2 Action Items

6

Action Items Delivery Confirm Analysis of Little Jackfish includes current cap and trade figures. Cap and trade has not been finalized. Carbon scenario for Little Jackfish analysis assumed $20/t in 2016, growing to $50/t in 2032 Circulate draft IRRP for review by LAC Completed

7

SUMMARY OF IRRP

Scenario A

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• No large industrial

projects materialize Scenario B

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• Geraldton area mining

project Scenario C

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• Geraldton area mining

project

• Pipeline conversion

project:

• 4 oil pumping

stations

8

Near-term (present-5 years) Needs: Greenstone Subsystem Forecast Scenarios

The Greenstone-Marathon IRRP working group does not consider any of these forecast scenarios to be of greater or lesser likelihood.

9

Near-term (present-5 years) Needs: Greenstone Sub-system

LMC: Load Meeting Capability

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Demand [MW] Year

Greenstone Sub-system Forecast Scenarios

Scenario C Scenario B (new) Scenario B (old) Scenario A Voltage Limit

Scenario A: Existing System is sufficient Scenario B: approx. 30 MW incremental LMC required Scenario C: approx. 90 MW incremental LMC required

10

Recommended Near-term Plan: Stage 1

Need

• Geraldton mine materializes

Recommendation

• Install +40 MVar reactive compensation

(either synchronous condenser or STATCOM) at mine site

• Install grid-connected generation in the

form of two 10 MW natural gas gensets at the Geraldton mine site Timing

• Coincident with Geraldton mine in-

service Net present value cost

• $5 M – Reactive Compensation
• $60 M – Customer Generation

Reactive Compensation New gas DG

11

OR

New 115 kV line New 230 kV line

Recommended Near-term Plan: Stage 2

Need

• In addition to the Geraldton mine,

pipeline conversion project proceeds Recommendation

• Install new 230 kV transmission supply
• Install new 115 kV connection line

Timing

• Coincident with pipeline project

connection to grid Net present value cost

• $160 million

East of Nipigon Route West of Marathon Route

• If timelines communicated by the Geraldton mine developer are delayed, it may be

more economic to advance the new 230 kV line to be in-service coincident with the Geraldton mine, if there is certainty that the pipeline is proceeding.

Implementation Considerations

• The plan elements are driven by industrial customer development and

therefore, in accordance with the Ontario Energy Board’s Transmission System Code, benefitting customers are responsible for the related costs

• The IESO is available to provide support for any regulatory and / or

environmental approvals

• The IESO does not have a direct role in agreements between customers and

proponents

• Customers and proponents need to establish agreements
• Aligning with recommended planning solutions could improve likelihood
• f proponents and customers obtaining approvals

12

Implementation – From Plan to Project

Plan Agreements & Approvals Project

13

Provide information for load forecast Develop and provide input into

• ptions

Provide on-going input/participate on LACs Develop IRRP with customer, proponent, and community input Cost recovery and partnership agreements Cost recovery and partnership agreements Partnership agreements Participate in engagements, public meetings Environmental assessment, engage and consult, leave to construct etc. Participate in engagements, public meetings Performs SIA; Provides evidence to support needs and recommendations in IRRP for approvals Project construction and commissioning Performance validation

Customer Proponent Communities IESO

• Additional mining claims in the Greenstone area
• Ring of Fire supply
• Cost considerations of Little Jackfish
• Community energy opportunities
• Others

Medium and Long-term Planning Drivers

14

• 1. Upgrading of circuit A4L from Alexander SS to

Beardmore TS

– Should be retained as an economic option for supplying additional mining in Greenstone by mine developers in the area – Mine developers should engage Hydro One, the transmission owner of circuit A4L – Lead time of approximately 5 years

Medium and Long-term Plan Recommended Actions

15

• 2. A multi-use infrastructure corridor to the Ring
• f Fire should consider the need for a new

transmission line

– Transmission supply continues to be more economic than self- generation for supplying the Ring of Fire mines and surrounding remote communities – Parties and communities investigating a multi-use corridor to the Ring of Fire should engage the IESO for scope of new transmission – The IESO will engage when aware planning is being conducted – The IESO will update its plans as more information is available

Medium and Long-term Plan Recommended Actions

16

• 3. Detailed study of cogeneration options in the

Town of Marathon may have merit

– Town of Marathon may wish to perform a detailed feasibility or engineering study that considers private sector customers, in addition to municipal facilities – IESO can support studies within its mandate – An engineering study may be eligible for funding through “Save on Energy”

Medium and Long-term Plan Recommended Actions

17

• Implementation of the near-term and medium-term plan

requires action from new customers to engage

• proponents. This action consists of the customer

establishing an agreement with the service provider.

• The IESO will support individual customers and

proponents within the context of the Working Group’s recommendations as documented in the IRRP, but does not have a direct role in agreements between customers and proponents.

Next Steps

18

• The following summarizes possible implementation agreements:

Next Steps

19

Stage Recommended Near-term Facilities Implementation Agreement Stage 1 Synchronous condenser or STATCOM Relevant agreements such as, but not limited to, Reactive Power Service and/or Capacity Agreement New 2x10 MW gas engine generating facility Relevant agreements such as, but not limited to, Capacity and Energy Agreement Stage 2 New 230 kV line, 115 kV line, 230/115 kV autotransformer station, switching, and voltage control devices Detailed planning as appropriate, Connection Application, Connection Assessment and Approvals, Cost Recovery, and other agreements consistent with TSC Medium - term Actions Implementation Agreement Mine developers in Greenstone should retain the

• ption of replacing sections of A4L

Detailed planning as appropriate, Connection Application, Connection Assessment and Approvals, Cost Recovery, and other agreements consistent with TSC

• The IESO will continue to perform planning activities

related to long-term initiatives such as supply to the Ring of Fire, the connection of remote First Nation communities, and community energy projects.

• The IESO will continue to engage First Nation

communities, Métis community councils, as well as Municipalities and other major interest groups through the LAC and on an as-needed basis.

Next Steps

20

21

QUESTIONS

22

APPENDICES

23

Appendix A: Near-term Plan

Scenario B – Alternatives Analysis

Alternative NPV Cost ($ millions) Option B1

1) Install power equipment to support service quality needs at customer mining site (reactive compensation device providing +40 MVar) 2) Install customer-generation (2x10 MW) at customer mine site

65 Option B2

1) Customer self-generation (off-grid)

190 Option B3

1) Install power equipment to support service quality needs at customer mining site (reactive compensation device providing +40 MVar) 2) Replace existing line with higher capacity line

40

24

Note: Scenario A does not require the development of alternatives because the existing system is capable of supplying growth while meeting all planning criteria

Scenario B – Alternative Analysis: Option B1

– Install +40 Mvar of reactive compensation in the form of either a synchronous condenser or a STATCOM at the Geraldton mine site – Install 2x10 MW gas-fired gensets at the mine site

25 Reactive Compensation New gas DG

Scenario B – Alternative Analysis: Option B2

– Install 6x9.5 MW off-grid gas generation plant at the Geraldton mine site

26 Off-grid Gas Generation

Scenario B – Alternative Analysis: Option B3

27 Reactive Compensation A4L Replacement

– Install +40 Mvar of reactive compensation in the form of either a synchronous condenser or a STATCOM at the Geraldton mine site – Replace 117 km of existing circuit A4L from Nipigon to Longlac with higher capacity conductor

Scenario C – Alternatives Analysis

Alternative NPV Cost ($ millions) Option C1

1) Install power equipment to support service quality needs at customer mining site (reactive compensation device providing +40 MVar) 2) New 230 kV Line to Longlac 3) Off-grid gas generation for two pumping stations

170 Option C2

1) Install power equipment to support service quality needs at customer mining site (reactive compensation device providing +40 MVar) 2) New 230 kV Line to Longlac 3) New 115 kV line Manitouwadge-Longlac

160 Option C3

1) Grid-connected gas-fired generating plant (6x18 MW) 2) New 115 kV line Manitouwadge-Longlac

340 Option C4

1) Customer self-generation (off-grid) at mine 2) Customer self-generation (off-grid) at four pumping stations

530

28

Scenario C – Alternative Analysis: Option C1

– Install +40 Mvar of reactive compensation in the form of either a synchronous condenser or a STATCOM at the Geraldton mine site – Install a new 230 kV transmission supply from the East-West Tie to Longlac TS coincident with the pipeline conversion project connection – Install two off-grid gas generating plants to supply two remote pumping stations from the pipeline conversion project

29

OR

Reactive Compensation New off-grid gas generation East of Nipigon Route West of Marathon Route New 230 kV line

Scenario C – Alternative Analysis: Option C2

30

OR

Reactive Compensation New 230 kV line New 115 kV line East of Nipigon Route West of Marathon Route

– Install +40 Mvar of reactive compensation in the form of either a synchronous condenser or a STATCOM at the Geraldton mine site – Install a new 230 kV transmission supply from the East-West Tie to Longlac TS coincident with the pipeline conversion project connection – Install a new 115 kV transmission connection line from Manitouwadge to Longlac TS to supply two remote pumping stations from the pipeline conversion project

Scenario C – Alternative Analysis: Option C3

31 New 115 kV line West of Marathon Route

– Install a new grid-connected gas-fired generating plant with a dependable capacity of 80 MW. Dependable capacity for gas generation considers a single unit outage. For costing purposes, a 6x18 MW facility was assumed. – Install a new 115 kV transmission connection line from Manitouwadge to Longlac TS to supply two remote pumping stations from the pipeline conversion project

New grid-connected gas generation

Scenario C – Alternative Analysis: Option C4

– Install 6x9.5 MW off-grid gas generation plant at the Geraldton mine site – Install four off-grid gas generating plants to supply the pumping stations from the pipeline conversion project

32 New off-grid gas generation Off-grid Gas Generation New off-grid gas generation

Appendix B: Long-term Plan

33

• A number of mining claims exist along the Highway 11

corridor in Greenstone

• In particular, a potential mine with a forecasted electric

demand of 5 MW exists near Beardmore

– If Geraldton mine is successful, and processing would take place at the Geraldton mine

Additional Mining Claims in Greenstone Area

34

35

Additional Mining Claims in Greenstone Area

The Greenstone-Marathon IRRP working group does not consider these forecast scenarios to be of greater or lesser likelihood.

Scenario A

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• No large industrial

projects materialize Scenario B

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• Geraldton area mining

project Scenario C

• LDC demand growth

(including two sawmill re- starts) from existing stations

• Geraldton area mining

project

• Pipeline conversion

project:

• 4 oil pumping

stations

• Scenario A:

Does not consider the Geraldton mine and therefore does not consider the Beardmore mine

• Scenario B:

Would require additional reinforcement to supply the Beardmore mine

• Scenario C:

Recommended near-term solutions would be sufficient to supply Beardmore mine

Additional Mining Claims in Greenstone Area

36

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

With Gas Generation With Transmission Upgrade With Gas Generation With Transmission Upgrade

Total NPV ($millions, 2015)

Incremental Costs

Additional Mining Claims in Greenstone Area

37

Under Option B1 where Geraldton mine has grid connected customer generation (2x10MW) Under Option B3 where a portion

• f the existing line has been

replaced with a higher capacity line

Beardmore Mine Options

Incremental Costs

• Up to 75 MW of forecasted demand from mines and

remote communities

• Assessed as part of the North of Dryden IRRP

– East-West and North-South transmission routes were found to be comparable in cost – Recommendation: “development of an infrastructure corridor to the Ring of Fire should consider the potential need for a transmission line”

• The Greenstone-Marathon IRRP will:

– Expand on the North of Dryden IRRP – Consider the potential cost synergies for a potential North-South route

Ring of Fire Supply

38

Ring of Fire Supply

39 Potential E-W corridor Potential N-S corridor

• r
• r
• r

Self Generation

Long-term Generation Option Long-term Transmission Option

New 230 kV Line to Pickle Lake Near-term Recommendation

Potentially Shared among new Greenstone and Ring of Fire customers

Greenstone

• Previously, the IESO determined that the Little Jackfish

hydroelectric project was not economic compared to other alternatives

• The IESO performed an updated analysis considering the possibility
• f shared costs for a new 230 kV line along the east shore of Lake

Nipigon to Longlac TS.

• The analysis concluded that a shared connection cost could result in

a reduction of $6/MWh or 4% for the project

• The reduction in cost is not significant; the project remains

uneconomic compared to other available alternatives

Little Jackfish Hydro Project Considerations

40

• Many communities along the north shore east of

Nipigon do not have access to pipeline gas in the Greenstone-Marathon study area and rely on electric heating

• The Town of Marathon had indicated that they are

investigating co-generation alternatives

• IRRP will include a planning level co-generation

technical and economic potential analysis for Marathon, which the methodology could be extended to any community

Community Energy Opportunities

41

Identify Large Consumers

• From the Broader Public Sector Energy Consumption Reporting, identify the largest

energy consumers.

• Map the locations of the largest energy consumers.
• Determine a sensible central location for a co-gen facility.

Size the Option

• Energy: for efficient use of fuel, the energy production should be sized based on the lesser of the

thermal or electrical energy, accounting for conversion efficiency. This ensures optimal fuel usage.

• Capacity: capacity should be sized notionally as not exceeding the total coincident demand of the

consumers. Determine Payback

• Determine the avoided cost of not separately buying electrical and thermal energy from the grid

and other fuels.

• Amortize the cost of the co-gen option and the avoided costs, determine the break-even point and

payback period.

Community Energy Opportunities: Planning-level Analysis of a Co-gen Option

42

Community Energy Opportunities: Planning-level Analysis of a Co-gen Option

43