[PPT] - Platte River Power Authority Resource Planning Community Listening PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

The Energy We Live By™

1

The Energy We Live By™

Platte River Power Authority

Resource Planning Community Listening Sessions

May 2013

SLIDE 2

The Energy We Live By™

2 2

Outline of Presentation

Platte River History
System Overview & Resource Mix
Energy Efficiency Programs
Rate Comparisons
Planning Activities – Past & Future

SLIDE 3

The Energy We Live By™

3 3

PLATTE RIVER HISTORY

SLIDE 4

The Energy We Live By™

4 4

Platte River Power Authority History

Not-for-profit joint action agency
Generates and delivers reliable,

low-cost, and environmentally responsible electricity to its owner communities—Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland

Formed in 1973 in response to a

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announcement that it would be unable to supply enough hydropower to meet cities’ future need

SLIDE 5

The Energy We Live By™

5 5

Current Board Members

Estes Park Fort Collins Longmont Loveland

Mayor Bill Pinkham

Mr. Reuben Bergsten

Mayor Karen Weitkunat

Mr. Gerry Horak

Mayor Dennis Coombs

Mr. Tom Roiniotis

Mayor Cecil Gutierrez

Mr. Steve Adams

Platte River Board of Directors

Local Decision Making

SLIDE 6

The Energy We Live By™

6 6

Platte River Management Team

Board of Directors

Financial Services

Dave Smalley

Operations

Jason Frisbie

Environmental Services/ Compliance

Deb Schaneman

Planning & Customer Service

John Bleem

Corporate Services

Karin Hollohan

Government & External Affairs

Barb Ateshzar

General Manager

Jackie Sargent

General Counsel

Joseph Wilson

SLIDE 7

The Energy We Live By™

7 7

Platte River Focus: Balance

Reliability Environmental Stewardship Competitive Price

Sustainability & Innovation

SLIDE 8

The Energy We Live By™

8 8

SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND RESOURCE MIX

SLIDE 9

The Energy We Live By™

9 9

Local Electric System Partnership

Residential Small Business Large Business Distribution Transmission Generation

Customers Estes Park Fort Collins Longmont Loveland Platte River Power Authority

Sole Electricity Supplier
Joint Ownership / Equity
Local Governance
Not for Profit

SLIDE 10

The Energy We Live By™

10

The Energy We Live By™

SLIDE 11

The Energy We Live By™

11 11

Electric Load Growth Characteristics

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Summer Peak Winter Peak Energy Population

SLIDE 12

The Energy We Live By™

12 12

Resources: Coal

5

18% Ownership (Units 1 and 2)
Ownership rating of 155 MW
Located near Craig Colorado
Very good reliability
High operating hours
Low operating cost
High capital cost

Craig Station (Yampa Project)

100% Ownership
Maximum rating of 280 MW
25 miles North of Fort Collins
Highest reliability
Highest operating hours
Lowest operating cost
Highest capital cost

Rawhide Energy Station

SLIDE 13

The Energy We Live By™

13 13

NOx & SO2 Emissions: U.S. Coal Units

Nearly 500 Individual Plants

10 20 30 40 50 60 lb/MWh

Rawhide Craig 1 & 2 Gas Units lb / MWh

Environmental Protection Agency

SLIDE 14

The Energy We Live By™

14 14

CO2 Emissions: U.S. Coal Units

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 lb/kWh

Rawhide Craig 1 Craig 2

Gas Unit Rates

Nearly 500 Individual Plants

lb / kWh

Environmental Protection Agency

SLIDE 15

The Energy We Live By™

15 15

Mercury Removal Progress: Coal

25.6 billion ping-pong balls

would fill the Astrodome stadium.

Imagine 19 of the balls are gray

(mercury) and the rest are white; that’s the concentration of mercury in the stack gases.

New equipment to remove 14 of

mercury balls by 2018 (three- quarter reduction). 2018 emissions ~ 1/3 teaspoon per day

Houston Astrodome Analogy

SLIDE 16

The Energy We Live By™

16 16

5 Gas Combustion Turbines

Resources: Natural Gas

Five separate units – 388 MW total (summer)
Located at Rawhide Energy Station
Low operating hours
Highest operating cost
Low capital cost

SLIDE 17

The Energy We Live By™

17 17

Renewable Resources: Hydropower

First Platte River resource (1970’s)
Amounts decreasing over time
Multiple generating units
“Loveland” and “Salt Lake” areas
Significant cost increases
Less flexible operations over time
Water availability risk
Firm supply at peak
Still relatively low cost

SLIDE 18

The Energy We Live By™

18 18 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Renewable Sources: Wind

Currently Reviewing Proposals for New Wind Sources

SLIDE 19

The Energy We Live By™

19 19

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wind Generation at Time of Peak

Wind provides energy – but not firm peak capacity

SLIDE 20

The Energy We Live By™

20 20

Renewable Resources: Solar

Office complex solar system
Installed in 1986 – still running

after 27 years

Supported CSU students and

research projects over time

Charged fleet electric vehicles
Currently reduces headquarters

campus loads

System peak load typically occurs after maximum solar output Average output at time of peak ~ 12%

Solar PV valuation study – Governor’s Energy Office 2011

SLIDE 21

The Energy We Live By™

21 21

Renewable Supply & Demand Forecast

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Renewables (MWh) Forecast Based On:

Renewable Standard
Municipal Policies
Voluntary Programs

Existing Renewable Sources (~ 3% of average supply – varies by Municipality) New Source(s) Needed by 2015

SLIDE 22

The Energy We Live By™

22 22

Timing of Past Resource Additions

50 100 150 200 250 300 Hydro Coal Gas Wind MW

No new coal being considered

SLIDE 23

The Energy We Live By™

23 23

Overall Resource Mix: 2012

Maximum Output

Rawhide Peaking Units (Gas) Rawhide Coal Craig Coal Hydro SLIP Hydro LAP Wind

Energy Produced

Rawhide Peaking Units (Gas) Rawhide Coal Craig Coal Hydro SLIP Hydro LAP Wind

SLIDE 24

The Energy We Live By™

24 24

20 40 60 80 100 Coal (Rawhide and Craig) Hydro (LAP and SLIP) Wind (Med Bow & Silver Sage) Simple Cycle Gas (Rawhide) Cost ($/MWh)

Existing Resource Costs

Resources are very different –

Firm capacity available
Operating schedule

2012 average operating costs

SLIDE 25

The Energy We Live By™

25 25

Costs for New Resource Options

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Existing Resources (average) Combined Cycle Gas Wind Hydropower Biomass Solar (PV) Cost ($/MWh)

U.S. average – Energy Information Administration 2013 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

New resource options are also very different

SLIDE 26

The Energy We Live By™

26 26

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 $/MCF

Fuel Cost Trends: Natural Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing

EIA U.S. wellhead gas prices – annual average price (dollars per 1,000 cubic feet)

2012 Gas Cost: Platte River $40.47 per MWh (4 cents per kWh)

SLIDE 27

The Energy We Live By™

27 27

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 $/Ton

Fuel Cost Trends: Coal

International demand & export infrastructure expansions

EIA Sub-bituminous Coal – annual average (dollars per ton)

2012 Costs – Platte River:

Rawhide – 1.2 cents per kWh
Craig – 1.7 cents per kWh
Average coal ~ 1/3 the cost of gas

Price drop in 2013

SLIDE 28

The Energy We Live By™

28 28

100

200 300 400 500 600 700 1 550 1099 1648 2197 2746 3295 3844 4393 4942 5491 6040 6589 7138 7687 8236 Surplus Sales Peaking & Purchases Craig Rawhide Western

Resource Utilization

Megawatts Highest Load Lowest Load City Loads (2012)

Wind

Surplus Sales (from Coal) Surplus Sales: Sales to wholesale market – lowers Municipal rates

Hydro

SLIDE 29

The Energy We Live By™

29 29

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Hydropower (LAP + SLIP) Craig Coal Units (1&2) Rawhide Coal Unit 1 Rawhide Natural Gas Peaking (Five separate units)

Municipal Loads & Resource Balance

Projected Municipal Peak MW

~ 15% Planning Reserve in 2019 Goal is 15% or greater

SLIDE 30

The Energy We Live By™

30 30

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (DEMAND SIDE) RESOURCES

SLIDE 31

The Energy We Live By™

31 31

Why Energy Efficiency (DSM)?

Relatively low cost resource

– Low “cost of conserved energy” for sponsoring utilities – Good payback for participating customers – Causes higher rates (~1% higher for existing programs)

Environmental benefits

– Reduced fossil fuel consumption – Reduced emissions (criteria pollutants & greenhouse gases) – Slows load growth / potential to delay the need for new generation

Economic support / keeps energy spending local

– Participating customers spend $2.5 per $1 of program incentives – Since 2002: $12M rebates  $30M in local efficiency investment – Revenue to local/regional providers of efficiency services

Reduces load growth – usually does not eliminate it

SLIDE 32

The Energy We Live By™

32 32

Building Tune-up Electric Efficiency Program LightenUP

Funding for building retrocommissioning Cash rebates & technical assistance for energy efficient upgrades – building envelope & HVAC

r industrial equipment

Cash rebates, technical assistance and referrals to experienced contractors for energy-efficient lighting retrofits

SLIDE 33

The Energy We Live By™

33 33

Energy Efficient Lighting Northern Colorado ENERGY STAR Homes

Reduced prices on LED light bulbs Supports new homes that require less energy than conventional construction

http://www.prpa.org/energy/

SLIDE 34

The Energy We Live By™

34 34

Cumulative Energy Savings (MWh)

Common Program Results

Total savings ~ 3% of Municipalities’ energy use
Annual energy use of nearly 12,000 homes
Load growth 2002-2012 was about 15%

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

SLIDE 35

The Energy We Live By™

35 35

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Efficiency Program Investments

Common Program Results

Average cost of savings: 2.3 cents per kWh (cost to Platte River) Most cost-effective programs done first

Average cost is based on 2012 IRP goals – to date results have been better than expected

SLIDE 36

The Energy We Live By™

36 36

ELECTRIC RATES

SLIDE 37

The Energy We Live By™

37 37

Wholesale Electric Rate Comparison

~ 70% of average retail rate

SLIDE 38

The Energy We Live By™

38 38

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

U.S. Prices

N. Colo Prices

PRPA Composite Rate

Percent Increase

Platte River Rate

Consumer Price Index Comparison

SLIDE 39

The Energy We Live By™

39 39

RESOURCE PLANNING

SLIDE 40

The Energy We Live By™

40 40

Integrated Resource Planning

Components of an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)

– Load forecast – Review of load / resource balance – Identification of options (supply and demand side of meter) – Analysis of options (cost, reliability, environmental, etc.) – Public participation process – Recommendations & Action Plan – Measurement & tracking

Decision Making / Approval of the IRP

– IRP approval by Platte River Board (Governing body) – Public involvement is part of process (differs by Municipality)

SLIDE 41

The Energy We Live By™

41

Resource Planning Timeline

May 2013 Initial Review Spring 2014 Final IRP Approval Planning Activities:

Options Identification & Analysis
Platte River Board Meetings
Other Meetings with Municipalities
Possibly Customer Surveys
Other Activities for Public Information

This is the beginning of a year-long process

SLIDE 42

The Energy We Live By™

42 42

2012 IRP Highlights / Updates

Load growth has slowed relative to historical levels
Next firm resource appears needed in about 2019
Next renewable resource(s) needed by 2015
Provide $2 million annual efficiency program funds
Update planning criteria – no longer rely on market

purchases at summer peak

Monitor regional opportunities / partnerships
Continue contingency & risk planning

http://www.prpa.org/sources/irp.htm

SLIDE 43

The Energy We Live By™

43

Climate Action Plan Highlights

2009 Platte River Plan tied to Colorado Plan

(initiated by former Governor Ritter)

Goal ⇒ 20% GHG reduction by 2020 (vs. 2005 level)
Effort focused on evaluating options
Voluntary vs. mandatory
20% reduction by 2020 technically feasible
Projected rate increases of 11% to 32% (retail) –

raised customer concerns

Greenhouse gas emissions analysis is a

key aspect of resource planning

SLIDE 44

The Energy We Live By™

44 44

Possible Resource Options

Solar options Small Hydro Storage / Controls Distributed Generation

Your Ideas?

Wind Biomass / Biogas DSM / Efficiency Natural Gas Turbines

SLIDE 45

The Energy We Live By™

45 45

Reasons for Liking Certain Options

Local Economic Factors Low Cost To Customers Reduce Greenhouse Gases Electric System Reliability Societal Considerations Meet Renewable Standards Your Ideas?

SLIDE 46

The Energy We Live By™

46 46

Comments?

Send your comments by 8:00 a.m., Monday, May 20, 2013 to:

Mail: Barb Zar, Platte River Power Authority, 2000 E. Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80525

or-

Email: communications@prpa.org

or-