icfi.com0
RGGI and CO2 Policy AnalysisOverview
Steve Fine and Chris MacCracken
November 2007
icfi.com© 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved.
icfi.com1
Outline
• ICF Overview
• RGGI Analytic Process
• Analytic Approach and IPM® Overview
• RGGI Reference and Package Scenarios– RGGI Region Results– Delmarva Results– Other Scenario Results
• CO2 Policy Implications for Generators
icfi.com2
ICF Overview
Thirty-eight years of experience –founded in 1969
A leading management, technology, and policy consulting firm providing advisory and program implementation services to public and private clients in many sectors:
EnergyEnvironmentEconomic DevelopmentTransportSecuritySocial Programs
Over 2,000 employees – 1,700 full-time, 300 part-time
Global presence with headquarters in Washington, DC area
icfi.com3
More than 30 years International Experience Advising Clients in the Energy Markets
Helping clients obtain
maximum value from
their energy market assets in Americas, Europe, and
Asia
Asset Acquisition & Deployment
• Wholesale power market and renewables energy analysis
• Fuel market analysis• Transmission and
interconnection assessment • Asset valuation• Due diligence• Asset & portfolio
optimisation
Network Analysis
• Regulatory strategy• Network benchmarking• Network valuation• Value of transmission
Emissions and Climate Change Management
• Regulatory analysis• Value-at-risk analysis• Project-based emissions
reductions• Emissions trading
support
Other Services
• Energy efficiency• Information management
systems• Economic & community
development• Emergency management
icfi.com4
Selected Experience in Environmental Strategy and Analysis• State and Regional Policy Analysis
– California Air resources Board (CARB) Multi-sector GHG Policy Analysis
– Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CO2 Analysis
– NY GHG Analysis– CT GHG Stakeholder Dialog– WRAP SO2 Regional Haze
• Air Emissions Compliance Strategy and Expert Witness Testimony
– Expert testimony on CO2 prices– Expert testimony and analytic support for
coal unit compliance plan • Allowance Market Analysis
– US Emission and Fuel Markets Outlooks since 1992
• Renewable Market Analysis– Costs and impacts of New York renewable
portfolio standard– REC forecast for wind developer
• Federal Policy Analysis– EPA policy and regulatory support analysis
for CAAA 1990, OTAG, SIP Call, 1997 NAAQS, CAIR, CAMR, Clear Skies, Carper
– EIS for FERC wholesale power market rulemaking for Order 888, Order 2000, Cost-Benefit Study for Standard Market Design
• Technology Assessment– Projected long-term penetration of IGCC
under multiple CO2 scenarios– Market analysis for pollution control
vendors and engineering firms
• Air Emissions Impact Analysis of Transmission Lines
– Minnesota Arrowhead-Weston line
• Compliance Planning– Real Options Analysis of NOX control
strategy
icfi.com5
Summary of Climate Change Experience
Highlights of Experience• Provide climate policy advice to
> 60 governments• Provide analysis to RGGI and CARB• Provide climate strategy advice to
> 55 companies in the FT Global 500• Over 230 professionals with climate-
related expertise
Service Offerings• Developing climate strategies aligned
with key corporate drivers based on our Value-at-Stake methodology
• Carbon market pricing analysis using our IPM® and InCaP models
• GHG emission inventories• Bringing CDM and JI projects through
the Kyoto cycle• Undertaking due diligence of CDM and
JI projects using our K-Prism model• Providing market analysis to low-carbon
technology companies• Modeling emissions scenarios• Assisting governments establish their
climate change policy framework and institutions
icfi.com6
RGGI Analytic Process
icfi.com7
Introduction
• NYSERDA, on behalf of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) State Working Group (SWG) commissioned ICF to evaluate the impacts of implementing a CO2 cap on the electric power sector in the northeast and mid-Atlantic region.
• The analysis that was produced was driven by two key issues: theAssumptions used and Scenarios examined.
• Both the technical and market assumptions that served as inputs to the modeling analysis as well as the policy scenarios evaluated weredeveloped by the RGGI Staff Working Group (SWG) and were the sole responsibility of the SWG.
• ICF used the Integrated Planning Model® (IPM®) to analyze these policies based upon the assumptions developed by the SWG.
icfi.com8
RGGI Analytic Process
• The bulk of the electric sector analysis for RGGI was focused onthe original 9-state configuration. Maryland has since joined to become the 10th state (after MA and RI re-joined).
– The 10 RGGI states are shown on the map on the previous page.
• Members of the 9 states participated as part of the SWG in the assumptions development and Reference and Policy case specifications.
• While ICF performed the analysis using its proprietary IPM® tool, the assumptions and scenario/policy specifications were the decisions of the SWG.
icfi.com9
RGGI Analytic Process continued
• The analytic process was carried out in multiple phases
• The first phase included 3 general stages:– Assumptions development– RGGI Reference Case Development– RGGI Policy Scenario Analysis
• The original RGGI Reference Case was based on the assumptions developed during the assumptions process. The entire assumptions document is available on the RGGI website.
– Note that the vast majority of assumptions developed during this process remained the same in every Reference Case variation and policy case.
• In this first phase of the analysis, the SWG had ICF analyze theimpacts of multiple CO2 caps on electric markets in the RGGI region as compared to the Reference Case.
– The initial cap cases included reductions ranging from 5% up to 35% from 1990 levels in the region.
icfi.com10
RGGI Analytic Process continued
• The SWG also defined a set of alternative Reference Cases that, for the most part, varied over 3 key assumptions:
– Natural gas prices– The availability of new coal capacity in RGGI– Electric demand growth
• The same policy (e.g., 15% below 1990 levels) was then implemented with each of the alternative Reference Cases to examine the impact ofalternative assumptions on the cost of compliance with the RGGI policy. That is, comparison of the results of the alternative reference case with and without the RGGI policy would show how the impacts of the policy behaved under different market conditions.
• Later phases of the analysis included updates to the underlying Reference Case assumptions made in response to SWG and Stakeholder comments.
– Changes were made to the gas and oil price trajectories, operating characteristics of oil and gas steam units in the RGGI region and to the representation of the New York capacity market in IPM®, among other things.
• Policy analysis after the first phase focused only on a single policy option referred to as the “Package” Case.
icfi.com11
Analytic Approach and IPM® Overview
icfi.com12
IPM® Analytic Framework
icfi.com13
The IPM® Modeling Framework
• The Integrated Planning Model (IPM® ) was used to analyze the impacts of environmental policies on allowance markets, electric markets and compliance decisions.
• IPM® is a linear programming model with a detailed representation ofevery boiler and generator operating in the United States. The model determines the least cost means of meeting electric energy and capacity requirements, while complying with specified air regulatory scenarios.
• In addition to optimizing wholesale and environmental markets, IPM®
simultaneously optimizes coal production, transportation and consumption.
– IPM® contains 40 coal producing regions and has over 10 coal types defined by rank and sulfur content.
– Each coal plant is assigned to one of over 40 coal demand regions characterized by location and mode of delivery including rail, barge, and truck.
• Natural gas prices are derived within IPM® using a similar supply curve and transportation network.
icfi.com14
IPM® North America
SPP-W
SPP-NVirginia
NEPOOL
PJM-W LILCO
PJM SouthPJM East
BritishColumbia Alberta
Sask
atch
ewan
Manitoba
OntarioQuebec
LabradorNewfoundland
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Prince EdwardIsland
PACNW-OR
PACNW-ID
PACNW-WA
Montana
NWPP East
NOCAL
SOCAL
S-NMArizona
ERCOT
RMA
N-NM
MAPPEn
terg
y TVA
COMED
ILMO
WU
MS
MEC
SSOECAR
Southern
Florida
Downstate NYUpstate NY
NYC
SO-NV
PJM-W ISOCarolinas
RI
CTSEMA(Southeast MA)
BOSTON
ME
VT
NH
WMA(Western MA)
Southwest CT / Norwalk
CMA/NEMA (Central / Northeast MA)
NOTE: PJM-East is represented as 3 IPM® regions to separate the RGGI-affected and unaffected units in the region: PJM-East-NJ, PJM-East-Delmarva, PJM-East-PA (PECO).
icfi.com15
• ICF uses a national version of IPM® specifically designed for simulating the effect of environmental regulations in the electricity sector.
• For this analysis, IPM® North America included representation of at least 40power market regions (depending on the final Northeast representation), including 10 New England regions, 5 New York regions, and 5 Canadian regions.
• IPM® explicitly models transmission links between those regions.• The model includes endogenous pricing of coal supply, gas supply and fuel
transportation costs.• The national model determines the least cost means of complying with the
specified air pollution regulations:– Multiple environmental compliance requirements are evaluated simultaneously - e.g., SO2 ,
NOX, CO2, Hg.– Determines optimal compliance for the system from a comprehensive range of choices
including: new investment in capacity and/or pollution controls, fuel switching, repowering, retirement, and dispatch adjustments.
Key Features of IPM®
icfi.com16
The IPM® Optimization Process
• IPM® combines peak power demand, total energy demand, and hourly load profiles to create load duration curves for each season and region.
• To meet demand, IPM® selects units to create a stack of generators dispatched by variable cost, subject to availability and other operating constraints. The last unit to be dispatched (i.e., the unit with the highest variable costs to operate) is the marginal unit and sets the energy price for that demand period.
• IPM® will choose to endogenously bring to market new capacity where it is economically feasible, in order to minimize the present value costs over the lifetime of the forecast period. For example, saving 1$ in 2003 is equivalent to saving $1.60 in 2010, assuming a 7% discount rate.
• All costs are prices in IPM® are represented in real 2003 dollars.
icfi.com17
AEO 2004 (EIA)
EPA ICF ISOs/ States Other
National Electricity and Peak Demand X Complete
Regional Electricity and Demand Breakout X Complete
Gas Supply and Price Forecast (wellhead and regional) X Complete
Oil Price Forecast X X Complete
Coal Supply and Price Forecast X X Complete
Financial Assumptions X Complete
Firmly Planned Capacity Additions X Complete
New Conventional Capacity Cost and Performance X X Complete
New Conventional Capacity Emissions Profiles X X Complete
Pollution Control Retrofit Cost and Performance X X Complete
Renewable Power Technology Cost and Performance X Complete
Renewable Power Resource Availability and Cost X Complete
Nuclear Unit Relicensing and Uprate Assumptions X (Rel.) X (Uprt.) Complete
Existing Transmission Total Transfer Capabilities X Complete
RTO Structure & Transmission Tariffs X Complete
New/Enhanced Transmission Line Capacity Not Applicable - No New Transmission Allowed Beyond Firmly Planned
Renewable Portfolio Standards X X Complete
3-pollutant Federal Program Specification X Complete
Status of Assumptions Development
Market Assumptions
Technical Assumptions
Policy Assumptions
Proposed Data Source
Assumption
Market, Technical and Policy Assumptions Status of Assumptions Development
icfi.com18
RGGI Reference and Package CasesRGGI Region Results
icfi.com19
RGGI Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Reference Case Package Case
GW
Other RenewablesWindGasCoalNuclear
icfi.com20
RGGI Generation Mix in 2024
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
Reference Case Package Case
TWh
Net Imports
OtherRenewablesWind
Other
Oil/Gas
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
icfi.com21
RGGI 9-State CO2 Emissions
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
Mill
ion
Tons
Reference Case
Package Case With Offsets
Package Case Cap
icfi.com22
CO2 Allowance Prices – Package Case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
$/To
n
icfi.com23
RGGI Average Annual Energy Prices
NOTE: Energy prices include annualized capacity prices.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
$/M
Wh
Reference Case
Package Case
icfi.com24
Change in RGGI Average Annual Energy Prices
NOTE: Energy prices include annualized capacity prices.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
Cha
nge
in E
nerg
y P
rice
Package Case
icfi.com25
RGGI Net Imports
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
TWh
Reference Case
Package Case
icfi.com26
Cumulative CO2 Reductions by 2015 and 2021RGGI and Eastern Interconnect/Canada
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
RGGI EI & Canada RGGI EI & Canada
Mill
ion
Tons
Offsets
On SystemReductions
2015 2021
icfi.com27
RGGI Reference and Package CasesDelmarva Region Results
icfi.com28
Delmarva Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Reference Case Package Case
GW
Other RenewablesWindGasCoalNuclear
icfi.com29
Delmarva Generation Mix in 2024
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
Reference Case Package Case
TWh
Net Imports
OtherRenewablesWind
Other
Oil/Gas
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
icfi.com30
Delmarva 9-State CO2 Emissions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
Mill
ion
Tons
Reference Case
Package Case With Offsets
icfi.com31
Delmarva Average Annual Energy Prices
NOTE: Energy prices include annualized capacity prices.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024
$/M
Wh
Reference Case
Package Case
icfi.com32
RGGI Reference and Package CasesOther Scenario Results
icfi.com33
RGGI Alternative Scenarios
• In addition to the Reference and Package Cases, ICF analyzed several scenarios and sensitivities defined by the SWG. These cases were designed to assess the impacts of key uncertainties and/or policy components, including
– High Emissions Case assumptions, including higher gas prices than in the Reference Case and new coal allowed in the RGGI region
– Efficiency penetration– Federal CO2 policy
• CO2 prices in the High Emissions Cases were generally 2-to-3 times higher than those in the standard Package Case.
• Higher assumed efficiency penetration pushed down allowance prices and also reduced leakage.
• RGGI CO2 prices in the cases with a federal CO2 policy overlaying RGGI were 5-to-6 times higher than in the Package Case.
icfi.com34
CO2 Policy Implications for GeneratorsImpacts on Existing Unit Operation
icfi.com35
CO2 Regulations Change Dispatch Costs, but Have Modest Impacts on Dispatch Order
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Uncont.Coal
ControlledCoal
CC ($6.5) CC ($8) Nuclear
$/M
Wh
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Uncont.Coal
ControlledCoal
CC ($6.5) CC ($8) Nuclear
$/M
Wh
Variable O&M and Fuel SO2 Hg NOx CO2
Without CO2 With $25/tonCO2
icfi.com36
CO2 Regulation Will Fundamentally Affect Unit Profitability
• CO2 regulation may not reorder dispatch, but it has potentially significant impacts on operating margins in competitive markets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50CO2 Price ($/Ton)
Mar
gin
from
CC
($6.
50/M
MB
tu)
Nuclear
Coal
icfi.com37
Allocations May be Used to Compensate for Lost Margins
• Existing units may receive some allocation for free to help compensate them for that reduced profitability
• Or … they may be required to spend tens of millions per year on allowances at auction
– Chart assumes 500 MW coal unit and 1990 stabilization target
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Allocation(Input)
Allocation(Output)
Hybrid(50%)
Auction
Mill
ion
$ pe
r yea
r
Annual Allowance Expenditures Required to Cover Emissions (500 MW Coal Unit at $25/tonCO2)
icfi.com38
Carbon Regulations Impact Power Plant Asset Value
• Emissions costs associated with carbon regulations increase the operating costs of existing and new power plants.
• Because carbon regulations typically increase costs for all fossil fired power plants, electricity prices also rise. For an individual plant, or a power companies’ portfolio, the net impact of carbon regulations depends on how much costs rise relative to the increase in power prices.
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
BaseValue
EnergyRevenue
Fuel Cost EmissionsExpense
AllocationValue
Carbon-Adjusted
Value
Uni
t Val
ue ($
/kW
)
Increase in Value
Decrease in Value
icfi.com39
CO2 Impacts Portfolio Asset Values
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
NoCarbon
Carbon NoCarbon
Carbon NoCarbon
Carbon NoCarbon
Carbon
Coal Nuclear O/G Gas Other NOx & SO2 Allocation CO2 Allocation
Ass
et I
mpa
cts
(in m
illion
s of
dol
lars
)
Company A Company B Company C Company D
icfi.com40
Appendix
icfi.com41
Transmission Capability -- EnergyPJM (GW)
* Inputs from NYISO
1.2
6.3
4.1
2.6
2.0
5.6
2.6 1.5
5.7
1.0
3.1
5.1
4.3
2.5
6.2
4.2
(NJ,DELMARVA)
3.7
2.2
2.6
3.6
3.22.2
4.5
3.1
Upstate NY
NYC
0.5*
1.0*
0.0*
2.4*
6.2
Downstate NY1.6*
0.6*9.6
3.3
5.3
4.8
5.9
7.1
4.7
3.3
2.6
2.175
FEW-Cen
West
PJM East(NJ,DELMARVA)
PJM-South(BGE,PEPCO)VIEP
AEP
COMED
Joint Capacity Constraints
Transmission Lines
Long Isl.
0.66
0.66