Block Island
description
Transcript of Block Island
Block IslandBlock Island
Vermont CHP and Customer Generation Potential StudySeptember 15th Study Team Progress Report
VSPC Study TeamPresented by: La Capra Associates, Inc.Stantec Consulting Inc.
Presented to:
September 15, 2010
2
Agenda Objectives for today’s briefing John Athas
Existing CHP/Customer Generation Dan Kelly, Jose Donnell
CHP Technology Overview Dan Kelly
CHP Potential Methodology - John Athas, Patty Richards, Barbara Stoddard, Melissa Whitten
Assumptions and Economic Testing John Athas
Summary of Issues from Discussion Patty Richards
Next Steps Patty Richards, John Athas
3
Objectives for today’s briefing
1.Provide an Update of the current CHP / Customer Generation Investigations
2.Provide an Update on the CHP Potential including an understanding of:
Methodologies and approximations
Progress in Data Gathering
3.Discuss any study issues and obstacles with the VSPC Study Committee
– Sub-bullet
4
Existing CHP/Customer Generation
Data Gathering
Industrial Database review
Vermont Utility Survey by La Capra Team
VT PSB
• Net-metering applications
• Posted CHP Existing Facilities
Host Customer Electric Load Information Request?
Mapping of Locations
Summaries of Technology and Operations
Customer Phone Interviews
Economic Review
5
Existing CHP/Customer Generation – Preliminary Tabulation
PLANT_NAME PHYS_CITY COUNTYZONE_VEL
CO IND_DESC START PRIME_MVRFUEL_TYPE1 GEN (kW) CHP
Brattleboro Kiln Dry Company Battleboro Windham O Wood Products 2000 ERENG NG 380 YESEthan Allen, Inc. Beecher Falls Essex A Furniture 1940 B/ST WOOD 1,232 NOBellow Falls High School Below Falls Windham O Schools 1991 ERENG OIL 433 YESCrescent Manor Nursing Home Bennington Bennington O Nursing Homes 1996 ERENG NG 60 YESBerkshire Cow Power Berkshire Franklin P Agriculture 2006 ERENG BIOMASS 600 YESBrattleboro Retreat Brattleboro Windham O Misc. Education 1988 ERENG OIL 1,000 YESOmega Optical Brattleboro Windham O Instruments 2005 ERENG OTR 461 YESBlue Spruce Farm Bridport Addison J Agriculture 2005 ERENG BIOMASS 392 YESVermont Energy Investment Corporation Burlington Chittenden G Office Buildings 1988 ERENG NG 60 YESHinsdale Farms Charlotte Chittenden I Agriculture 2005 ERENG BIOMASS 65 YESEast Ryegate Wood Energy East Ryegate Caledonia E Pulp and Paper 1992 B/ST WOOD 20,000 NOPompanoosuc Mills East Thetford Orange K Furniture 2008 B/ST WAST 30 YESEssex Junction Wastewater Treatment Essex Junction Chittenden B,I Wastewater Treatment 2004 MT BIOMASS 60 YESFlorence Project Florence Rutland L Minerals 1992 CT NG 7,600 NOGilman Mill Gilman Caledonia F Pulp and Paper 1982 B/ST WOOD 4,000 NOBell Gates Lumber Jeffersonville Lamoille C Wood Products 1988 B/ST WOOD 75 YESMiddlebury College Middlebury Addison J Colleges/Univ. 1982 B/ST OIL 1,885 NOFoster Brothers Farm, Inc. Middlebury Addison J Agriculture 1982 ERENG BIOMASS 142 YESNorth Country Hospital Newport Orleans A Hospitals/Healthcare 2005 B/ST WOOD 274 YESNorwich University Northfield Washington E Colleges/Univ. 1987 B/ST OIL 625 YESGreen Mountain College Biomass Facilitiy Poultney Rutland M Colleges/Univ. 2010 B/ST WOOD 300 YESWestminster Farms Putney Windham O Agriculture 2009 ERENG BIOMASS 225 YESGreen Mountain Dairy Farm Sheldon Franklin B,C Agriculture 2007 ERENG BIOMASS 275 YESRock Tenn Sheldon Springs Franklin B,C Pulp and Paper 1994 B/ST OTR 1,135 NOSouth Burlington School South Burlington Chittenden G Schools 1999 ERENG NG 60 YESSouthern State Correctional Facility Springfield Windsor N Justice/ Public Order 2005 ERENG NG 600 YESMontagne Dairy Farm Swanton Franklin B,P Agriculture 2007 ERENG BIOMASS 300 YESGreen Mountain Coffee Roasters Waterbury Washington E Food Processing 2003 ERENG NG 375 YES
6
CHP Technology Overview
Prime Mover Technologies to be Studied
Internal Combustion Turbine
Diesel Based Configurations
Fuel Cells
Combustion Turbine
Steam Turbine / Back Pressure Steam Turbine
Key assumptions being finalized
Available Sizes and Fuel
Electric and overall thermal efficiencies
Cost & Performance
7
CHP Potential Methodology
Overview of analysis
Customer / Segment Characteristics
Segment Size
Electric Load
Thermal Load
Natural Gas Availability
CHP / Customer Generation Equipment Operation
8
CHP Potential Methodology - Overview Begins with estimation of Customer segment
sizes represented by a typical customer SIC Code – two digit
Load Zone
Fuel availability
Electric and Thermal Use Characteristics, potential for CHP and Electric to Thermal Switching such as Absorption Chilling
Various Generation technologies and sizes tested for each segment.
Analysis approximates the operation of a CHP unit based upon electric and thermal match
Lowest cost per kWh plant will be chosen
9
CHP Potential Methodology – Electric Load Data
MWH by ZoneMWH by Zone Statewide - EVT Data
Burlington - BED Data
Retail Sales (no distribution, transmission or sub-transmission losses)
Missing IBM 2008 and 2009 data set
– Used average 2005 to 2007 for missing IBM data
Missing ~ 8% of the load data from the zone counts.
– Per EVT missing data :» OMYA
» Stowe Mount Mansfield Load
» Unknown Loads
» Will make adjustment to load zones per above
Customer Count by Zone
SIC
MWH by Zone by SIC
Number of Customers by Zone by SIC
No KW… yet (EVT)
If no data produced may need “typical load” factor
Will have to back into KW
10
CHP Potential Methodology – Electric Load Data
CHP Potential Methodology - Sample Customer Data
11
Number Customers per Load Zone per Type (C= Commerical, I=Industrial, R= Residential)
Sum of CountOfUPremise SectorLoadZone ZoneDescription C I R Grand Total
A Newport 1,980 4 14,640 16,624 B St. Albans 2,236 6 17,744 19,986 C Johnson 1,098 4 11,007 12,109 D Morrisville 2,538 11,262 13,800 E Montpelier 5,182 9 33,815 39,006 F St. Johnsbury 1,938 2 11,412 13,352 G Burlington 3,722 13 16,293 20,028 H IBM 1 1 I Chittenden\Addison GMP 7,220 11 41,980 49,211 J Middlebury 1,499 3 9,027 10,529 K Central - Barnard 4,699 4 28,436 33,139 M Rutland 5,938 9 36,266 42,213 N Ascutney 1,830 2 12,300 14,132 O Southern 7,179 14 45,515 52,708 P Highgate 1,263 1 10,111 11,375
Grand Total 48,322 83 299,808 348,213
CHP Potential Methodology – Sample Load Zone Data
12
Sales KWH Average (2007 through 2009)
Sum of KWH (Avg '07-'09) SectorLoadZone Zone Commercial Industrial Residential Unknown Grand Total
A Newport 69,659,778 30,866,073 83,614,924 184,140,775 B St. Albans 103,448,666 84,367,278 136,617,733 324,433,677 C Johnson 31,920,910 52,837,304 78,019,063 162,777,277 D Morrisville 75,106,752 73,593,970 148,700,722 E Montpelier 196,122,954 74,853,804 225,812,447 496,789,204 F St. Johnsbury 73,957,128 22,938,649 75,903,868 172,799,645 G Burlington 215,256,667 49,632,000 88,089,333 352,978,000 H IBM 225,431,785 225,431,785 I Chittenden\Addison GMP 436,347,593 85,216,134 312,905,919 834,469,646 J Middlebury 60,622,871 48,355,935 72,955,409 181,934,215 K Central - Barnard 148,893,221 36,991,422 202,185,166 388,069,809 M Rutland 227,723,347 97,049,549 260,818,338 585,591,233 N Ascutney 71,284,266 11,059,939 86,981,782 169,325,987 O Southern 305,780,389 135,891,646 324,318,285 765,990,320 P Highgate 51,398,438 55,529,543 66,950,910 173,878,891
Unknown Vermont 103,537,847 103,537,847 Grand Total 2,067,522,979 1,011,021,060 2,088,767,147 103,537,847 5,270,849,033
Statewide Avg 5,696,793,053 Delta 460,456,636
8%
Missing Action Zone - OMYA Assign to L - Mount Mansfield Assign to D - Unknown Accounts load weight avg all zones
CHP Potential Methodology: Estimated Thermal Load
How to obtain Thermal Load – Load not served by How to obtain Thermal Load – Load not served by electricityelectricity
Sources for natural gas usage by Industry may exist:
Vermont Natural Gas:
– Service territory does not include entire state
– Availability: to be determined
Need total thermal load served by all fuels not just gas
Input-Output data collected annually by SIC code
– Annual tables have limited detail
– Benchmark years have more detail but released with a lag – latest year is 2002
– Provides metric for electric, gas, coal, and petroleum used to produce each industry’s output.
13
14
CHP Potential Methodology: Estimated Thermal Load
Input – Output Table: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)Input – Output Table: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Provides value of fuel used as a share of output
Correspondence to 4-digit SIC code level detail (*)
Paper Mills (SIC 26): for every $1.00 of output produced:
– Electricity: 3 cents Natural Gas: 2.7 cents
Algorithm to Estimate Electric to Total Thermal Load:Algorithm to Estimate Electric to Total Thermal Load: Relative fuel prices to electric prices for Benchmark Year 2002
Developed algorithm to estimate Electric to Total Thermal Load
Combined ratio of each fuel’s share of output to electricity’s value – in algebraically correct manner
* Fuel price ($/ mmBtu ) divided by Electricity price ($/mmBtu)
Apply to EVT, et al, kWh by SIC to obtain Thermal Load for use as input Apply to EVT, et al, kWh by SIC to obtain Thermal Load for use as input to Customer Economic Model.to Customer Economic Model.
Historical Price by Fuel Type: create price ratios
15
Year State Industry Sector Category Residential Commercial Industrial
Other (street lighting,
agricultural & irrigation,
transporation)
Total Price
2002 US-TOTAL Total Electric Industry - Cents per kWh 8.44 7.89 4.88 6.75 7.20
$ per MWhr 84.40 78.90 48.80 67.50 72.00
$ per MMBtu 24.73 23.12 14.30 19.78 21.10
Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power All Users
2002 U.S. U.S. Natural Gas Prices $/Mcf 7.89 6.63 4.02 3.68
mmBtu/Mcf 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
$/MMBtu 8.10 6.81 4.13 3.78 0.00
Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power All Users
2002 U.S. Petroleum Products (Wgtd Average) 9.86 6.83 6.41 4.29 8.93
2002 U.S. Steam Coal 1.57 1.25 1.27
2002 U.S. GDP Deflator 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
3.05 3.40 3.46 3.78 2.36
2.23 3.33 16.65
9.10 11.46 16.65 Ratio of Electric / Coal Price $/MMBtu
Source: EIA AEO 2005, Reference Case Forecast Table A3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source, and
Table A19. GDP Price Deflator Index
U.S. Price of Fuel Delivered to Sector (Dollars per MMBtu)
Ratio of Electric / Petroleum Price $/MMBtu
U.S. Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Sector (Dollars per Mcf)Source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm (Note: Thousand Cubic Feet = Mcf)
Ratio of Electric / Gas Price $/MMBtu
EIA Electric Power Annual - State Historical Tables for 2008 Released: January 21, 2010
Average Price of Electricity by Provider, 1990-2008
Example: Thermal Load Estimation for one SIC
16
EVT / La Capra / BEA SIC Concordance (NAICS) IOCode Industry Name (NAICS Description)
212100 Coal mining
221100 Electric power
gen, transm, distr
221200 Natural gas distribution
324110 Petroleum refineries
26 322120 Paper mills 0.0028467 0.0309194 0.0266901 0.0084476
Electric / Other Fuel Input as a share of Total Output: 10.86 1.16 3.66
Electric Price / Other Fuel Price - Industrial Sector: 9.10 3.46 2.23
Fuel Prices $/MMBtu 1.57 14.30 4.13 6.41
Interim Step 1.19 0.33 1.64
Estimated Electric to Total Thermal Load: 0.23
EVT & Segments kWh (converted to Btus) / Estimated Electric to Total Thermal Load = Thermal Load Btus
Used as Input to Economic Analysis
U.S. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (BEA) INPUT-OUTPUT (I-O) ACCOUNTS 2002 BENCHMARK YEAR (Detailed SIC Code Data)
TABLE: Commodity-by-Industry Direct Requirements, after Redefinitions (1987, 1992, 1997 to 2008)
INPUT / OUTPUT: Each Industry Uses these Sources of Energy as a Commodity
INPUT. The values shown represent the cost of that INPUT as a share of $1.00 of each industry's OUTPUT.
17
CHP Potential Methodology: CHP OperationCustomer Segment Characteristics
Electric Peak Demand Estimation
Split of High Quality (e.g. Steam) and Low Quality (e.g. Hot Water) Thermal Usage
Capture Existing Fuels used for Thermal Energy Production
Allowance for Thermal Use Characteristics
Thermal Match Factor (reduces customer thermal)
Thermal Requirement Split (reduces hours of CHP operation)
CHP Unit Assumptions Sizes Evaluated – Max Customer Peak, Minimum based on
Load factor
Units Operate whenever Thermal output is utilized on-site
Excess sold at Market Prices to grid
18
CHP Potential Methodology: Potential Definitions
Technical Potential Generation Plant Sized ‘optimally’ for each segment
Customer Thermal Load dependent
Will not include creation of aggregated thermal loops such as district heating and cooling
Segment CHP Cost of Electricity Net Cost of Electricity for the “Technical Potential” Blocks
Economic Potential Sizes Evaluated – Max Customer Peak, Minimum based on
Load factor
Units Operate whenever Thermal output is utilized on-site
Excess sold at Market Prices to grid
19
Assumptions and Economic Testing
Assumptions
EVT Assumptions
Cost of Money
Discount rate
Avoided Costs
Escalation Rates
‘Core’ Fuel Price
Externality ‘costs’ of emissions
Electric Utility Rates – specific local utility
20
Assumptions and Economic Testing
Economic Testing
Net Cost of Electricity
Host Customer Economics – value based upon electric rates and market prices
20 year NPV, Simple Payback, Internal Rate of Return
Electric Utility Resource Economics – value based on market prices for energy and capacity, avoided distribution and transmission
Societal Test, Total Resource Cost Test, Utility Cost Test
21
Economic Testing – Net Cost of Electricity
Capital
O&M
CHP FuelThermal Credit
Net Cost of Electricity
22
Summary of Issues from Discussion
MethodologyMethodologyCustomer DataCustomer DataExisting CHPExisting CHP
23
Next Steps
23
24
Thank youThank you
One Washington Mall, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02108www.lacapra.com
617-778-5515
Contact Information:
John [email protected]
277 Blair ParkSuite 210Williston, VT 05495802-861-1617 or802-861-1618