Transcript NRG Concerns with HIP Assumptions 20130121

NRG Comments/Concerns with HIP
Assumptions
January 21, 2014 RPG Meeting
NRG Comments/Concerns with HIP Assumptions - January 21, 2014
Baseline – Planning Assumptions We
Should all Agree On
•
The Coastal region load (and Houston particularly) is likely to continue growing in the
foreseeable future.
•
Like the Coastal region, there are other regions in the state that are also expected to
see continued load growth thanks to Texas’ growing economy (west Texas, D/FW
metroplex, regions in the south and central portions of the state such as Corpus Christi,
Austin/San Antonio corridor, and the Rio Grand valley.)
•
There is not enough generation to meet the Planning load in 2018.
•
A planning assumption of reduced load in one area of the state is electrically equivalent
to adding that same amount of generation in that one area.
•
The assumptions used in any planning scenario are the key drivers for the results.
1
Assumptions Used in ERCOT’s HIP Analysis
Appear to be Pushing Towards a Particular Result
Table 1: Load Reduction Assumptions Utilized in HIP Analysis
SE Case Peak
COAST
EAST
FAR_WEST
NORTH
NORTH_CE
SOUTH_CE
SOUTHERN
WEST
Total Load
26,355
3,088
2,775
1,473
21,924
14,401
7,103
1,897
79,016
Planning
Peak
26,355
3,088
3,176
1,747
29,512
14,401
7,103
2,230
87,611
SE/Planning
100%
100%
87%
84%
74%
100%
100%
85%
Planning - SE
401
274
7,587
333
Note: Planning Peak is the higher of SSWG load or the 90/10 load.
2
What do these Assumptions Mean?
•
The data in the previous slide shows that ERCOT reduced the load by greater than 8,000
MWs in the North Central, North, West and Far West weather zones, while holding the
Coastal, East, South Central and South weather zones at the planning case levels.
•
Electrically, this added 7,587 MWs of generation in the North Central load zone (a 26%
reduction in load), primarily in the D/FW metroplex.
•
Electrically equivalent to adding X amount of “zero-cost, must run” generation at each
load bus where load was reduced. The size of the generation is a percentage of the
peak load at the bus. The percentage was determined by how much is needed to have
a “solvable” case.
•
Note: In addition to reducing load in the North Central, North, West and Far West
weather zones, the HIP analysis included mothballed generation outside the Houston
region, but excluded mothballed generation inside the Houston/coastal region. This is
equivalent to adding 1,273 MWs in the North and removing 206 MWs of generation from
Houston and the South.
3
Load Assumptions Ensure Large Quantities of
Transmission are Needed to Serve Houston
Reduced load 274 MW
Reduced load 333 MW
Reduced load 7,587 MW - electrically equivalent to
adding a 7,587 MW unit, mainly in DFW. Also
added an additional 1,273 MWs of mothballed gen.
=2018 Planning peak load
Reduced load 401 MW
Undoubtedly, these types of assumptions
would lead to a conclusion that major
transmission infrastructure is needed into
Houston from the North.
= 2018 Planning peak load
= 2018 Planning peak load
= 2018 Planning peak load
4
The Assumptions Are Not Supportable
•
•
•
•
•
•
For any type of HIP transmission expansion to work there has to be something to
import!
Is it proper to assume that generation is never added in the coastal region or the
south, but approximately 10 GW is added in the North, mostly in DFW? [Load
reduction plus mothballed units]
Would an assumption of “any” level of generation (or load reduction) in the
southern and coastal region significantly change the HIP results?
The HIP assumption that load is growing in Houston and nowhere else is not
supported by other Planning data. For example, ERCOT’s December 2013 Report
on Existing and Potential Electric System Constraints and Needs discusses in
detail the large load growth expected to continue in far west Texas and in the
Denton/DFW area.
North Central load in the HIP (SE) case is lower than the actual peak in 2013.
A review of other data elements provided by ERCOT’s Planning Group indicates
modifications to the assumptions should be made that are better supported by
the data.
5
If Load Reduction is Required for Planning,
What is the Proper Criteria?
Table 2: ERCOT Data from October 22, 2013 RPG
Average % of peak load of each weather zone during the top ten
hourly peak load conditions at the Coast Weather Zone
Year
2011
2012
2013
Average
East
97%
96%
77%
90%
Max
97%
99%
Min
77%
96%
South South Central
98%
96%
96%
96%
99%
97%
97%
97%
Far West
94%
93%
96%
94%
West
84%
93%
78%
85%
97%
96%
93%
91%
93%
96%
93%
78%
68%
86%
North North Central
68%
93%
79%
86%
91%
89%
79%
89%
• At 10/22/13 RPG meeting, ERCOT stated that “Decreasing the loads in North, North Central, West and Far
West Weather zones is reasonable because they are geographically & electrically far from the Coast Weather
zone, and historical data … indicates the loads in the weather zones do not experience peaks load at the
same time as the Coast weather zone.
• Questions: Should peak loads in other regions be based on “average” coincident peaks? A closer review
shows maximum coincident peaks are closely aligned. Isn’t the HIP analysis supposed to be a “peak” case?
• How can an assumption of a 26% reduction of load in the North Central weather zone be justified based on
the above numbers?
6
ERCOT’s SGIA Data Doesn’t Support the Load
Reduction Assumptions
Table 3
Generation Interconnection Agreements as of December 31, 2013
INR
Site Name
County
COD
Fuel
MW For Grid
14INR0016
Channel Energy Center
138/345kV CT
Harris
14-Jun
Gas
190
14INR0015
Deer Park Energy Center Harris
14-Jul
Gas
190
Llano
14-Jul
Gas
Harris
Grayson
Bell
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
Change
from Last
Report
Zone
Table 4: IAs by Region
Coastal
Coastal
Total by Region
570
West
Coastal
Gas
Gas
Gas
15
720
717
Coastal
North
North Central
MW for
Grid
MW
%
2340
31.4
570
7.6
North
1079
14.5
13INR0040
10INR0021
10INR0020a
Ferguson Replacement
Project
Rentech Project
Panda Sherman Power
Panda Temple Power
10INR0020b
Panda Temple Power
Bell
15-Aug
Gas
717
North Central
North Central
3226
43.3
13INR0049
Friendswood Energy
Generation
Harris
15-Sep
Gas
316
Coastal
Far West
Total
240
7455
3.2
100
13INR0023
Texas Clean Energy
Project
Ector
16-Jan
Coal
240
Far West
13INR0028
Antelope Station
Hale
16-Jun
Gas
359
13INR0021
West
North
06INR0006
Cobisa-Greenville
Hunt
16-Dec
Gas
1792
Projected
COD
10INR0022
Pondera King Power
Project
Harris
16-Dec
Gas
1629
MW for
Grid,Proj.
COD
North Central
Coastal
Source: ERCOT System Planning Monthly Status Report – December, 2013, Renewables Removed.
7
ERCOT’s Full Interconnect Study Data Doesn’t
Support the Load Reduction Assumptions
Table 5
1.1 Generation Projects Undergoing Full Interconnection Studies
Interconnection
Database
Reference
Number
County
Fuel
Capacity to
Grid (MW)
Commercial
Operation
(from
resource
developer)
14-Mar
South Central
Zone
14INR0069
Milam
Coal
30
14INR0040
Hidalgo
Gas
225
14-Jun
South
14INR0059
Kaufman
Gas
52
14-Aug
North Central
14INR0066
Lamar
Gas
130
14-Nov
North
13INR0054
Bee
Gas
25
14-Dec
South
14INR0039
Ector
Gas
450
15-Mar
Far West
14INR0038
Galveston
Gas
390
Winkler
Gas
123
15-Apr
15-May
Coastal
15INR0053
15INR0054
Reeves
Gas
123
15-May
Far West
15INR0055
Austin
Gas
142
15-May
South Central
15INR0027
Hidalgo
Gas
79
15-Jun
South
15INR0028
Freestone
Gas
160
15-Jun
East
15INR0042
Hood
Gas
460
15-Jun
North Central
Source: ERCOT System Planning Monthly Status Report – December, 2013, Renewables Removed.
Far West
8
ERCOT’s Full Interconnect Study Data Doesn’t
Support the Load Reduction Assumptions, Cont.
Table 6
1.1 Generation Projects Undergoing Full Interconnection Studies
Interconnection
Database
Reference
Number
County
Fuel
Commercial
Capacity to Grid Operation
(MW)
(from resource
developer)
Table 7: Total FIS’s by Region
Zone
15INR0023
Wharton
Gas
700
15-Jun
Coastal
16INR0010
Mitchell
Gas
799
16-Feb
West
16INR0009
Calhoun
Gas
510
16-Apr
Coastal
16INR0006
Angelina
Gas
785
16-Jun
East
16INR0003
Brazoria
Gas
11
16-Jun
Coastal
16INR0004
Cameron
Gas
730
16-Jun
South
16INR0005
Cameron
Gas
871
16-Jun
South
16INR0007
Hidalgo
Gas
95
16-Jun
South
17INR0004
Hale
Gas
202
16-Jun
North
15INR0032
Hale
Gas
197
16-Jul
North
15INR0033
Hale
Gas
197
16-Jul
North
16INR0013
Nacogdoches
Gas
215
16-Jul
East
17INR0002
Henderson
Gas
489
17-Jun
North Central
17INR0003
Jackson
Gas
965
17-Jun
Coastal
17INR0007
Wharton
Gas
1177
17-Jul
Coastal
11INR0040
Freestone
Gas
640
18-Mar
Total by
Region
Coastal
West
North
North Central
Far West
South
South Central
East
Total
MW
3753
799
726
1001
696
2025
172
1800
10972
C+S+ W+N+
SC + E NC + FW
34.2
3753
7.3
799
6.6
726
9.1
1001
%
6.3
18.5
1.6
16.4
100
696
2025
172
1800
7,750
3,222
East
Source: ERCOT System Planning Monthly Status Report – December, 2013, Renewables Removed.
9
If There Isn’t Enough Generation, Aren’t These Load Reductions
More Supportable Based on FIS Data (Table 7)?
Reduce 6.6%
Reduce 9.1%
Reduced 7.3%
= Reduce 16.4%
Reduce 6.3%
Reduce 34.2%
Reduce 1.6%
Reduce 18.5%
10
If FIS Data Isn’t Considered, Then Shouldn’t Load Reductions
be Closer Aligned with Actual SGIA Data (Table 4)?
Reduce 14.5%
Reduce 43.3%
Reduced 7.6%
= Reduce 9.1%
Reduce 31.4%
Reduce 3.2%
No Change
No Change
11
Other Questionable Assumptions
•
ERCOT’s December 17, 2013 Update on the HIP Project to the RPG included an
evaluation of the impact of retirement of older than 50 year old generation “inside
Houston area”.
•
11 units (total 1939 MW) are more than 50 year old by 2018 Sam Bertron G1, G2, G3, G4 and GT2; T.H.
Warton GT1; W.A. Parish G1, G2, G3, G4, and GT1
•
However, if the HIP projects are dependent on imports from the north, why ignore units
that will be greater than 50 years old in the North zone?
•
The North zone contains 17 units more than 50 years old by 2018 for a total of 2,857
MW.
•
•
Handley 3, Mountain Creek 6, Mountain Creek 7, Mountain Creek 8, Powerlane Plant 2, Ray Olinger 1,
Spencer 4, Stryker Creek 1, Stryker Creek 2, Atkins G3, Atkins G4, Atkins G5, North Texas 1, North Texas
2, North Texas 3, Valley Unit 1, Valley Unit 2.
What is basis for assumption that only >50 year old units in the Houston area will retire
and others outside of Houston won’t?
12
Conclusions
•
The load reduction (generation addition) assumptions used to make the HIP analysis
“solvable” are questionable, not supported by other available data, and can only lead to
one conclusion – build major transmission infrastructure from the North into the Houston
area.
•
Approximately 10,000 MWs of new, low cost generation added in the North, primarily in the DFW metroplex.
•
No generation added in the Coastal weather zone or in the South.
•
Older units retire only in the Houston area, nowhere else.
•
Mothballed generation is only available if it’s outside of Houston.
•
Building a major transmission corridor with nothing to import could lead to stranded,
costly transmission investments placed on the backs of consumers.
•
NRG believes that more supportable assumptions would significantly alter the HIP results
and likely result in a more cost-effective utilization of consumer dollars.
13