Estes Park Fort Collins Longmont Loveland Renewable Energy Generation – A Local Perspective –...

Estes Park

Fort Collins

Longmont

Loveland

Renewable Energy Generation

– A Local Perspective –National League of Cities – EENR CommitteeSeptember 5, 2014

The Energy We Live By™

2

Local/Regional Governance

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

3

Residential

Small Business

Large Business

DistributionTransmissionGeneration

Customers

Estes ParkFort CollinsLongmontLoveland

Platte River Power Authority• Not for profit• Joint Ownership • Wholesale Market Participant

Local Electric System Partnership

Changing Boundaries

4

Price

Growth

Technology Evolution

5

NREL

Existing Wholesale Generation Resources

5 Craig Coal Rawhide Coal

Rawhide Gas Turbines(simple cycle)

Hydropower(multiple sites)

Wind (multiple sites)

6

6

Demand Side Management ResourcesEn

ergy

Sav

ings

(MW

h) Investment (m

illions)

http://efficiencyworks.CO

7

• About 5% system energy savings to date (all measured programs)• Low cost vs. generation

Availability Comparison

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coal Gas Biomass Wind Hydro Solar

8

Integration needed tomaintain reliability

• Existing technology (short term)• New technology (long term)

Renewable Energy Source Trends

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

20122014

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Total RenewablesHydroWind & Solar

Rene

wab

le E

nerg

y (M

Wh)

Close to30% renewables(average water)

60 MW wind &30 MW solar

planned(2014/2015)

9

First Utility ScaleWind in Region

• No Federal RES (yet)• State standards influence planning• CO – most hydro “not renewable”

Platte River System

Regional Wind Resources

MedicineBow

SpringCanyon

SilverSage

10

Additional purchasesfrom KS and OK

Lessons:• Economy of scale (significant)• Geographic diversity (limited for these sites)• Incentives favor taxable entities• Operation & maintenance cost escalation• Maintenance provider quality (outsource?)• Transmission constraints• Market timing – monitor trends

Spring Canyon Site(New 60 MW in 2014)

11

Wind Operations Considerations• Low availability during peak periods

• Lower production in summer season than winter (summer peaking system)

• Average generation rate of ~ 35% (capacity factor)

• Newer generation ~ 40% +

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Load

Wind

• Intermittent supply

• Forecasting challenges

• Requires balancing and regulation

• Need new integration resource(s): – Regional purchase (balancing authority) – Local system utility scale (wholesale)

– Local distributed scale (retail)

12

Wind output at system peak hour

2014 Solar RFP

• Many years of study/estimates• Seeking firm price bids• 30 MW maximum size (Phase I)• Pricing for range of sizes (5–30 MW)• Photovoltaic technology• Fixed and tracking mountings• Degradation/output warranties• Lots of other details• Sale to all Municipalities• RFP released in late September

13

Siting Considerations

Large area needed (5 to 10 acres per MW)• Land use/permitting requirements• Transmission cost can be avoided• Local interconnection limits

14

Municipal Solar Programs:• Focused on photovoltaic (PV)• Feed-in tariff design ~ 5 MW• Other programs ~ 3 MW

Office Complex System:• Still running after 27 years• Supported CSU students and

research projects over time• Charged fleet electric vehicles

15

Distributed Solar

15

Solar Hot Water

16

“THERMAL” SOLAR SYSTEMS• Still an option!• Many local dealers• Tax credits available (thru 2016)• Homes & businesses• Support many of the same goals as

electric systems• Some Municipalities provide natural

gas service• Part of overall energy system

RBI Solar

Distributed Renewable Energy

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400

Size

(MW

)

• Existing – all four communities• ~ 420 systems (electric)• Total of about 3 MW (3,000 kW)• Largest = 180 kW• Smallest = 0.7 kW• Six small wind turbines/rest are PV solar• New programs adding more systems• Significantly higher cost than large scale• Can provide other “local” value

17

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Solar OutputCity Load

Solar Generation at Time of Peak

Solar Peak(noon)

Hours in a day

System Peak(typically 4-6 pm)Av

erag

e Ju

ly D

ay O

utpu

t

• Intermittent supply• Higher in summer• ~ 18% capacity factor• Fast drop off• Need new integration

resource

18

Solar “Duck Curve”

SMUD (California)

19

Renewable Resource Integration OptionNatural Gas – Combined Cycle

Considerations

• Improved efficiency

• Lower emissions

• Flexible modes – simple cycle or

combined cycle

• Optional configurations

• Variable operation to integrate intermittent renewable sources

• Added costs

Example – General Electric

3420

Other Options: • Distributed generation (firm)• Storage technology?• Demand response?

ReBus

Micro and Macro IntegrationDown to the Home

(Micro Grids)

Up to the Western Grid(Energy Imbalance Markets)

PacifiCorp

• Renewables integration at every level• Complex system planning• Coordination/collaboration needed• Stakeholder communications critical

21

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Existing Resources(average)

Combined Cycle Gas

Wind

Hydropower

Biomass

Solar (PV)

Cost ($/MWh)

Costs for New Resource Options

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

22

0

50

100

150

200

250

Solar cost(with ITC/AD)

Wind cost(with PTC)

Retail rate(average)

Wholesale rate

(average)

Solar value Wind value

$/M

Wh

Local Cost Comparisons

23

PRELIMINARY

Key Points:• Does not include CO2 charges/other external costs• Federal incentives ~ 30-40% of renewable cost (included)• Size has significant impact on cost• Transmission and integration costs ~ 30% for wind• Costs are very site specific• Renewable costs dropping (solar more so than wind)• Costs of other resources increasing (capital, fuel + O&M)• Renewable value increasing• Net metering – cost recovery considerations

• 2014 Strategic Plan• 2012 Integrated Resource Plan• 2009 Climate Action Plan

(Click on “Plans” tab)

Planning for the Future

http://www.prpa.org/

24

Key Initiatives:• Collaboration & Communication• Resource Portfolio Diversification• Technological Innovation

• Safety• Exceptional Customer Service• Operational Excellence• Compliance Assurance• Financial Stability• Employee Engagement

Estes Park

Fort Collins

Longmont

Loveland

Questions/Discussion?

25