CPUC Avoided Cost Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cpuc avoided cost workshop l.jpg
1 / 29

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CPUC Avoided Cost Workshop. Generation Avoided Costs. Organization of Presentation. Goals and Recommended Approach Discussion of Comments Input Data Vs. Methodology Scenarios and Stress Cases. Goals for the Avoided Cost Methodology.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

CPUC Avoided Cost Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Cpuc avoided cost workshop l.jpg

CPUC Avoided Cost Workshop

Generation Avoided Costs

Organization of presentation l.jpg

Organization of Presentation

  • Goals and Recommended Approach

  • Discussion of Comments

  • Input Data Vs. Methodology

  • Scenarios and Stress Cases

Goals for the avoided cost methodology l.jpg

Goals for the Avoided Cost Methodology

  • Disaggregate information by area and time to facilitate detailed analyses where appropriate

  • Use publicly available data, or information that can be easily provided by utilities

  • Transparent method

  • Easily updated

Forecasts how often are they correct l.jpg

Data Sources

Forecasts: How Often Are They “Correct”?

Generation avoided cost comments l.jpg

Generation Avoided Cost Comments

  • “Thin markets are not accurate”

  • “Forward prices do not reflect full capacity value - Hedge value”

  • “Use of CCGT misstates avoided cost in high usage and low-usage periods”

    • Market price referents

  • “Separate electric capacity and energy avoided costs are needed”

  • Source of generation cost inputs

Generation marginal cost forecast working group framework l.jpg

Generation Marginal Cost Forecast Working Group Framework

Market Data

(Short Term)

Long Run Proxy

(Long Term)

Electric Forward data

Gas Futures data

Long Run Marginal Cost (CCGT)





Short term forecast example l.jpg

Megawatt Daily sample of long-term forward data for on-peak delivery ($/MWh for August 22, 2003)

Average annual prices derived from on-peak quotes

Use 1999 PX data for on-peak to off-peak ratio

Data Sources

Short-Term Forecast Example

Nymex gas futures extend forwards through 2008 l.jpg

NYMEX Gas Futures Extend Forwards through 2008



Electric forwards data

Natural gas futures data

Recommendation on market forwards l.jpg

Recommendation on Market Forwards

“Thin markets are not accurate”

“Forward prices do not reflect full capacity value - Hedge value”

Liquidity of forward market data l.jpg

Liquidity of Forward Market Data

  • Electricity Forwards: Platts does not include volume data. Likely illiquid, especially for 2006. Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is another potential source.

  • Gas Futures: NYMEX data indicate good liquidity in the near 24-36 delivery months, less so in the subsequent months

  • Gas Basis Swaps: No basis swap volume data published, likely illiquid, especially for later months

  • Illiquidity does not necessarily imply a systematic bias in the data (higher or lower than avoided cost)

  • It is possible that illiquid markets can be manipulated

Comparison of platts broker quotes and nymex l.jpg

Comparison of Platts (broker quotes) and NYMEX

The comparison shows that forward market prices do not differ significantly by market (NYMEX futures vs. Platts bilateral).

Possible alternatives to reliance on illiquid forward markets l.jpg

Possible alternatives to reliance on illiquid forward markets

  • Utilities provide their own forward price curves

  • Average forward prices over several days or multiple sources rather than relying on a single source and day

  • Econometric electricity price forecast: NYMEX gas with electricity spot price regression

  • Use NYMEX gas with monthly heat rate assumption

  • Use forecast from CEC or a production simulation model

  • Ignore forward markets and move directly to resource balance year

With the exception of 1) and 2), it is not clear these alternatives provide a better outcome than E3’s proposed methodology

Full capacity and hedge value in the market data l.jpg

Full Capacity and Hedge Value in The Market Data

  • Forward contracts are firm delivery at a set price, so no additional hedge value is required.

  • The forward price contains the market valuation of the capacity needed to ensure firm delivery of the contracted energy. No additional capacity value is required.

Generation cost level lrmc l.jpg

Data and


Generation Cost Level: LRMC

  • Long Run Marginal Costs (LRMC) used for marginal costs beyond the resource balance year in the forecast.

  • The LRMC estimate would be based on the cost to own and operate a combined cycle gas fired generator located in the California Control Area.

  • LRMC sets the annual average costs, and the historical market is used for the shape.

  • LRMC data source

    • We recommend that the forecast use publicly available input from the CEC, EIA and possibly EPRI.

Slide15 l.jpg

LRMC Proxy Cost Is a gas fired CCGT a reasonable proxy for the long term marginal cost of electricity in CA?

  • Reviewed over 350 plant descriptions from NWPPC, WECC and CEC for plants built in last 3 years and in process of being built over next 5 years. Several conclusions can be drawn from this data:

    1.Most capacity that has come on line or is planned is from gas fired generation: 73% in US; 90% in NWPPC area; 84% in WECC area; and 98% in California.

    2.Combined Cycle (CCGT) plants are the dominant technology: 89% of NWPPC area gas fired plants; 94% of planned gas fired plants in WECC area; 87% of the gas fired plants constructed in the last 3 years or planned in California.

    3.Combustion Turbines (CT) comprise of 5% of the NWPPC area gas fired generator market. In the WECC area, of the gas fired plants that had their technology specified 3% of the plants planned were CTs. In California, CTs comprise of 13% of the gas fired plants.

Lrmc different plant specifications data was produced in june 2002 l.jpg

Data Sources

LRMC- Different Plant Specifications(Data was produced in June, 2002)

Data shows significant differences in costs and performance by plant type

Lrmc example using eia epri and cec estimates of ct and ccgt costs l.jpg

Data Sources

LRMC Example Using EIA, EPRI and CEC estimates of CT and CCGT Costs

The levelized cost is fairly close if we use a common set of input assumptions

What really drives the LRMC are the gas and financing forecasting assumptions

Hourly shape historical market data timeline l.jpg

Data Sources

Hourly Shape: Historical Market Data Timeline

Used for Price Shape











Normal times:

Relatively stable

and low prices

UDCs resume


for small RNS

Electricity crisis: hot summer, gas price spike, emission cost spikes; dry hydro; capacity shortage; rolling blackouts; capped prices

Example np15 shape l.jpg

Example NP15 Shape

Average of Hourly Values by Month

Capacity separation l.jpg

Capacity Separation

“Separate electric capacity and energy avoided costs are needed”

Example of capacity separation l.jpg

Example of Capacity Separation

  • Integral of the light blue area is the capacity cost.

Market price referents l.jpg

Market Price Referents

“Use of CCGT misstates avoided cost in high usage and low-usage periods”

Hourly costs already reflect market prices for various generator types l.jpg

Hourly Costs Already Reflect Market Prices for Various Generator Types

  • Generators that operate few hours (like peakers) will have relatively high average market prices.

  • Baseload plants will have relatively low average market prices, as they will be operating when marginal costs are lowest,.

Peaker Average

Baseload Average

Peakers are not getting the capital cost of a ccgt unit l.jpg

Peakers are not getting the capital cost of a CCGT unit

  • Under LRMC, CCGT’s recover the full capital cost of their plant IF they:

    • have a heat rate of 7100 BTU/kWh

    • operate at 91.6% capacity factor

  • Peaker units have higher heat rates, so their margin when they operate is lower --- so less capital recovery.

  • Peaker units would also operate far fewer hours, so there would be even less margin to cover return on and of the capital

Scenarios and stress cases l.jpg

Scenarios and Stress Cases

May be Suitable for DR and Dispatchable DG or Rate Programs

High gas price high growth scenario l.jpg


High Gas Price/High Growth Scenario

Scenario- Higher growth pushes the resource balance year

to 2007, the transition to LRMC begins at 2006 and we have

75th percentile gas prices until 2010 and base case LRMC after.

Resource Balance Year

Electric Forward data from Platts

Long Run Marginal Cost (CCGT)

LRMC with

High Gas

Transition to LRMC

LRMC with

Base Case Gas

Stress case model l.jpg

Stress Case Model

Using the model to create scenarios l.jpg

Using the Model to Create Scenarios

Example of program evaluation l.jpg

Example of program evaluation

  • Avoided cost values for a range of alternative scenarios for a dispatchable program with fewer than 4 hours per dispatch and 50 dispatches per year.

PG&E climate zone 12, weighted average of planning divisions

  • Login