california renewable energy resource potential and cost update
DESCRIPTION
California Renewable Energy resource potential and Cost update. Black & Veatch. Presentation Outline. Introduction California Cost and Resource Assessment Solar Wind Bioenergy Geothermal Out of State Resources Future Cost Declines Zone Identification. 1. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
BLACK & VEATCH
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE POTENTIAL AND COST UPDATE
2
• Introduction
• California Cost and Resource Assessment• Solar• Wind• Bioenergy• Geothermal
• Out of State Resources
• Future Cost Declines
• Zone Identification
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION
3
4
• The objective of this project is to prepare a comprehensive and up-to-date data set of cost, performance, and resource potential for renewable energy in California and the West
• This information will be used in the RPS Calculator and potentially other applications
• The last comprehensive California resource assessment was the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI, 2008-2010)• Many changes in the market necessitate this update
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
5
• This PowerPoint summarizing approach• Detailed maps showing location and quality of
potential • Tables and spreadsheets with resource potential
and cost (incorporated into RPS calculator)
CONTENT GENERATED UNDER THIS PROJECT
2. CALIFORNIA COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
6
7
• Summary of Cost and Resource Assessment• General Approach• Resource Exclusions• Solar PV• Solar Thermal• Wind• Bioenergy• Geothermal
COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENTDISCUSSION TOPICS
SUMMARY – COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
8
• This section summarizes:• Major methodological changes in the cost and resource
assessment compared to the approach taken in RETI• Key results, especially as they compare to previous RETI
work
• Much more detail included later in this presentation and in reference material
INTRODUCTION TO SUMMARY
9
• Used to compare ranges in estimates across major resource assessments:• RETI 1B – 2008• RETI 2B – 2010• RPS Calculator – 2013
• Three key variables summarized• Capital cost• Capacity factor• Resource potential
BOX AND WHISKER PLOTS
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Median
1st Quartile
3rd Quartile
• Methodology Changes • Completely new state-wide resource
assessment for fixed and tracking PV from 250 kW to 20 MW+
• Much lower capital costs • Potential for significantly higher
performance driven by modern plant designs
• Incorporated E3 “Local Distributed PV” study for DG potential
• Results• Much lower LCOE than previously
estimated• Good-to-excellent quality PV
resources available throughout state
SOLAR PV
11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
SOLAR PV CHANGES (TRACKING, 20+ MW)
12
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Excludes distributed PV
State-wide
Southern CA
State-wide
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
SOLAR PV CHANGES (TRACKING, 20+ MW)
13
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Excludes distributed PV
Reduced capital
cost
CF up to 36% for best sites
State-wide
Southern CA
State-wide
Statewide resource
• Methodology Changes • Only minor changes• Increased capital costs to reflect current costs• Added Power Tower with 6-hour storage
• Results• No changes in resource potential• Slightly higher costs
SOLAR THERMAL
14
SOLAR THERMAL CHANGES (NO STORAGE)
15
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
RETI 1B included wet and dry-cooled plants. RETI 2B and the current estimates are dry-cooled only.
SOLAR THERMAL CHANGES (NO STORAGE)
16
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
RETI 1B included wet and dry-cooled plants. RETI 2B and the current estimates are dry-cooled only.
Increased capital cost
No changes No changes
• Methodology Changes • Characterized low wind speed resources using
new turbine designs• Reduced minimum wind speed for
development from 6.3 to 5.5 m/sec• Reduced capital costs • Accounted for significant wind development
that has occurred in last 5 years • Removed restriction on development in RETI
category 2 lands (yellow)• Added distributed resources
• Results• Overall costs significantly lower• Total potential relatively unchanged, but much
more wind identified in Northern California• Quality of identified resources lower on
average
WIND
17
WIND CHANGES
18
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
Excludes distributed wind
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
WIND CHANGES
19
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
Excludes distributed wind
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Reduced capital
cost
75% of identified wind <30% CF
Increase in low wind potential
75% of identified wind >30% CF
• Methodology Changes• Accounted for biomass already being used and
competing uses• Added distributed resources (incl. biogas) in
compliance with SB 1122• Adjusted costs upward slightly to account for inflation
• Results• Resource potential and costs relatively unchanged
• Average plant size is smaller, which increases average cost
• Distributed resources now available
BIOENERGY
20
BIOENERGY CHANGES
21
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
DG
Capital cost and capacity factor exclude distributed bioenergy
BIOENERGY CHANGES
22
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
DG
Capital cost and capacity factor exclude distributed bioenergy
Increased capital cost
No changes Slight reduction
• Methodology Changes• Only minor changes• Accounted for development that has recently occurred• Adjusted costs upward slightly to account for inflation
• Results• Resource potential and costs relatively unchanged
GEOTHERMAL
23
GEOTHERMAL CHANGES
24
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
GEOTHERMAL CHANGES
25
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac Resource Potential, MWac
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
RETI 1B(2008)
RETI 2B(2010)
RPS Calc(2013)
Increased capital cost
No changes
Slight reduction
APPROACH – COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
26
27
• Black & Veatch developed new cost and performance information from internal sources, market data, and other literature (LBNL, DOE, CEC)
• When possible, previously-vetted information from other Black & Veatch stakeholder projects was used• Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (2008-2010)• Western Renewable Energy Zones (2009, 2012-2013)• SB1122 Biomass Feed-in Tariff (2013)• NREL Renewable Electricity Futures (2010)
APPROACH – SOURCES OF DATA FOR RESOURCES
28
• RETI was active from 2008-2010. Two major resource assessments:• RETI 1B – 2008• RETI 2B – 2010
• The RETI methodology was reviewed extensively by stakeholders and reused to the greatest extent possible
• Updated as necessary to address significant changes market
APPROACH – RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSMISSION INITIATIVE
29
• Capital Cost Updates• Costs are “all-in” installed costs and include EPC + owner’s costs
(soft costs)• Costs include costs through the interconnection to the T&D system • Costs are for 2013 projects – Future cost forecast curves developed
for all technologies
• Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Updates• Black & Veatch O&M cost estimates include all other annual costs,
including land lease, insurance, and property tax*
• Resource potential and performance was updated for all technologies compared to the RETI assessment• Major methodology changes made for wind and solar PV• Small-scale bioenergy from SB 1122 analysis• Minor updates to all other resources (Solar Thermal, Geothermal,
Biomass)
APPROACH – GENERAL METHODOLOGY
*Solar PV is currently exempt from property tax in CA
30
• A comprehensive resource assessment was completed identifying specific project locations• This is a more detailed approach for assessing the costs
of the remaining CA developable potential than generic ranges
• Costs for individual locations can vary widely• Costs presented in this presentation represent the
range of values from the resource assessment• Comprehensive resource assessments should show
much higher costs at the high end than observed in the market today
APPROACH – COSTS BASED ON UPDATED RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR CALIFORNIA
31
• Declining capital cost trends make improved performance more affordable
• Developers may opt to pay higher capital costs for increased performance (low wind speed turbines, tracking PV, higher PV dc/ac ratios)• Black & Veatch is observing this in the
market• Lower LCOE (and other market factors)
enables much more resource to be economically available than previously estimated by Black & Veatch
CAPITAL COST, PERFORMANCE, AND RESOURCE POTENTIAL ARE CONNECTED
Cost
Performance
Potential
32Uncertainty exists in all estimates
• Estimates are not points, they are ranges• What is the cost for a house in the US?
• Status of technology development, status of design, site specifics, contracting approaches, market conditions and other factors can all impact cost
• Estimates for a single project at a single site with identical design will be bid at different costs by different EPC (Engineer-Procure-Construct) contractors
• So when you add different sites and different contracting approaches the ranges of estimates widen further
IMPORTANT NOTE - ESTIMATES ARE NOT POINTS
33
• Black & Veatch Design & Construction Projects
• Financial due diligence• Project finance, mergers and acquisitions
• Bid Reviews for Developers, Utilities, and Others
• Market modeling and assessments• Energy market modeling, forecasts, integrated resource
planning, locational marginal pricing
• Broad, high-level studies• Strategic planning (RETI, Western Renewable Energy Zones,
etc.)
APPROACH – SOURCES OF INTERNAL BLACK & VEATCH COST DATA
RESOURCE EXCLUSIONS
34
35
• Not all lands are suitable for renewable resource development
• Land exclusions were generally based on:• Previously-agreed exclusions in
RETI • Updated environmental
exclusions • Resource-specific exclusions
(e.g., military flyways for wind) – discussed later
GENERAL LAND EXCLUSIONS
36
• Military Lands (some exceptions)• Tribal Lands• Active Mines• Airports• Urban and Built-up Land• Water Bodies
GENERAL LAND EXCLUSIONS
Example For Southern California
37
WECC EDTF = Western Electricity Coordinating Council Environmental Data Task Force http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/Pages/EDTF_Home.aspx
• Focus has been to remove lands where development is prohibited or practically impossible
• Merged stakeholder-vetted public datasets:• RETI Category 1 – “Development
Prohibited” • WECC EDTF* Category 4 – “Areas Presently
Precluded by Laws or Regulation”• Feinstein California Desert Projection Act
• Consistent with DRECP exclusion areas for conservation lands
• Have not screened out any other lands for environmental reasons. These may be “scored” (0-100) rather than removing them entirely
ENVIRONMENTAL EXCLUSIONS
SOLAR PV
38
39
• Completely revised approach from 2008-2010 RETI to capture major improvements in technology
• Included three major configurations• Tracking• Fixed-tilt• Rooftop
• Sizes from 250 kW – 20 MW+ (ac rating)• Updated resource, performance, and cost
SOLAR PV APPROACH
40
While overall trend is decreasing solar PV costs, higher performance is achieved by increasing inverter loading ratio which increases capital cost
• Cost updated for systems from 1 to 20+ MW (ac rating)• Fixed Tilt and Single Axis Tracking• Black & Veatch assumes little appreciable economies-of-scale after 20
MW. Therefore a single estimate is provided for systems that size and larger.
• Smaller-scale rooftop systems also included (250 kWac)
• Higher performance systems assumed• Increased dc to ac ratio, also known as inverter loading ratio (up to 1.4)• Higher ac capacity factors
• Capital costs include a $200/kW allowance for interconnection costs (except for rooftop, where interconnection costs are assumed to be minor and included in the system costs)
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SOLAR PV
41
SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS - UTILITY-SCALE
Rooftop and distributed assessment separate
• Resource-specific• Williamson Act
• Prime • Farmland Security Zone (FSZ)• “Mixed”
• Land slope greater than 5 percent
• General• Environmental • Water• Native American Lands• Military Lands• Mines• Urban Areas• Airports
42
SOLAR PV PERFORMANCE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED (RETI 1B MAX CF = 28%, NOW 35+%)
Fixed Tilt Tracking
Capacity Factor (ac)
43
• Potential identified by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3)• From “Technical Potential for Local Distributed
Photovoltaics in California” Study• Study estimates the technical potential for “local”
distributed photovoltaics• Study defines local distributed as PV sized such that its
output will be consumed by load on the feeder or substation where it is interconnected
DISTRIBUTED PV POTENTIAL
44
CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS
Fixed Tilt Design
Single Axis Tracking Design
Small-scale system (rooftop application)
AC Capacity (kW) 1,000 5,000 10,000 20,000+
2013 $/Wdc $2.85 $2.65 $2.44 $2.35
2013 $/Wac $4.00 $3.71 $3.41 $3.28
AC Capacity (kW) 1,000 5,000 10,000 20,000+
2013 $/Wdc $3.22 $3.02 $2.81 $2.72
2013 $/Wac $4.19 $3.93 $3.65 $3.54
AC Capacity (kW) 250
2013 $/Wdc $3.29
2013 $/Wac $3.95
SOLAR PV CAPITAL COSTS
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
Syst
em C
ost,
$/W
ac
System Size, MW ac
Fixed Tilt
Tracking
Rooftop
45
46
PV COST COMPARISON WITH RETI
RETI Phase 1B (2008) Current B&V Estimate
Capital Costs ($/kWac)
7,065 3,546
Fixed O&M ($/kWac-yr)
44 35
Variable O&M ($/MWh)
0 0
• 20 MW, Single Axis Tracking
All O&M costs modeled as fixed for simplicity
SOLAR THERMAL
47
48
• No update to potential• Original resource potential identified in RETI 2B (2010) used
SOLAR THERMAL
Solar Thermal Project Locations
49
• Cost data for developed projects is limited due to low activity in the sector
• Black & Veatch’s capital cost estimates were increased slightly relative to initial RETI estimates based on reported costs for projects in the DOE loan guarantee program and other data sources
• RETI costs were based on parabolic trough technology• This update includes an estimate for solar power tower
as well
SOLAR THERMAL COST UPDATES
50
• 200 MW solar thermal plant
SOLAR THERMAL COST COMPARISON WITH RETI
RETI 1B(2008)
Parabolic Trough, no storage
Power Tower, 6-hrs storage
Capital Costs ($/kW) 5,300 5,900 8,100
Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 66 66 66
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0
All O&M costs were decided to be modeled as fixed.
WIND
51
52
• Wind turbine generator information includes new technologies• Class III turbines can now be economically feasible at wind speeds
as low as 5.5 m/s
• Costs reflect current conditions
• New software used to perform calculations, although the theory behind the calculations was unchanged
• Methodology consistent with RETI• Methodology to develop expected production• Calculations to estimate costs• General exclusion categories under consideration• Wind speed data source (AWS Truepower)
SUMMARY OF UPDATES
53
• Resource-specific• Red military flight path• Land slope greater than 20
percent
• General• Environmental • Water• Native American Lands• Military Lands• Mines• Urban Areas• Airports
WIND EXCLUSIONS
Very similar to RETI
54Similar approach as RETI
• Most high capacity factor sites in California have been developed
• Black & Veatch re-assessed wind potential in California applying newer low wind speed turbines as appropriate
• Many new areas included, especially northern California
WIND PERFORMANCE
55
• Utility-scale projects (20-200 MW) were identified from the available land after exclusions were applied, based on LCOE and estimated project size
• Distributed wind projects (2-20 MW) identified using similar constraints, but also close to existing substations
PROJECTS IDENTIFIED
56
• Results
Apply exclusions and project size
limitations
LCOE state-wind estimates
NCF at identified utility scale project sites
57
NORTHERN CALIFORNIAPREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CREZ (2008-2010)
Geothermal
WindWind
Wind
Wind
NORTHERN CALIFORNIACURRENT POTENTIAL WIND PROJECTS
58
Previously Identified CREZ (2008-2010)
LARGEST POTENTIAL NEW WIND AREA IS SACRAMENTO RIVER VALLEY
59
• Relatively low quality wind regime – average capacity factor of 27%
• Generally accessible for transmission and construction
• A few projects have been proposed, but limited development outside Solano CREZ
• Concerns about viability due to cancelled projects and unquantified environmental risks
• Reflecting concerns, Black & Veatch discounted technical potential in this area by 50%
SACRAMENTO RIVER VALLEY:9 GW OF TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ACROSS 10 COUNTIES
60
TEHAMA
BUTTE
COLUSA
GLENN
SUTTER
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO
YOLO
LAKE
SAN JOAQUIN
61
Apply exclusions , project size limitations, and ID sites near existing substations
State-wind NCF estimates Distributed Generation Sites
62
• BASE COSTS:
• Steeper terrain makes some areas more expensive to develop. Modifiers based on slope were used to account for terrain:
• Direct Costs calculated as:Base Turbine Costs + (Slope Multiplier)*(BOP/erection + Switchyard)
• Owner’s cost was assumed to be 15% of the direct costs
• Distributed wind: 20% adder for dis-economies of scale
CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS
Category Class I, 80m Class II, 80m Class III, 100mTurbine ($/kW) 950 1,100 1,250BOP/erection ($/kW) 400 420 475Switchyard ($/kW) 150 150 150
Slope MultiplierLess than 4 percent 1.00Between 4 percent and 8 percent 1.16Between 8 percent and 16 percent 1.22Greater than 16 percent 1.55
63
• Utility-scale (>20 MW) wind projects in CA
WIND COMPARISON WITH RETI
RETI Phase 1B (2008) Current B&V Estimate
Capital Costs ($/kW) 2,280-3,260 1,770-2,400
Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 60 36
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 0 2.9
BIOENERGY
64
• Original RETI work focused on solid biomass resources
• Biogas added as potential resource• Minor changes to overall methodology used to
identify potential • Distributed resources (projects under 20 MW)
included in update• RETI focused on large (20 MW or larger) projects only
BIOENERGY
65
66
• Small biomass SB1122 (<= 3MW) projects included • County-level resources from 0.3 to 19 MW
• Biogas SB1122 (<= 3MW) projects included • County-level resources from 0.8 to 23 MW
• Resource potential updated for large biomass projects• Potential of at least 20 MW
SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMPARED TO RETI BIOMASS ASSESSMENT
Vetted with SB1122 Stakeholders
Vetted with RETI Stakeholders
• Included biogas in the assessment• Food wastes, leaves/grass, fats/oils/greases (FOG), and
dairy manure• Estimated SB 1122 (bioenergy FIT) development on a
county level
• Updated resource datasets• Different year basis for biomass dataset, same source• Accounted for materials being used and corrected
starting point for agricultural resources and urban wood waste
• Biogas datasets consistent with SB 1122 analysis
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHANGES SINCE 2008
67
• Forest residues, agricultural residues, and urban wood wastes for solid bioenergy• California Biomass Collaborative (CBC) 2017 technically
available tons (2007 report)• CBC/CEC 2011 data for low moisture food processing
waste
• Food and food processing wastes, leaves/grass, and FOG for biogas production• CBC data for food waste and leaves/grass• NREL estimates for FOG production per person, with
assumptions for 2017 population and 50 percent recovery
RESOURCE ESTIMATION
68
All biogas projects characterized by this approach
• 250 MW of SB 1122 compliant (bioenergy feed-in tariff) projects assumed to be built• Food and organic wastes – 110 MW• Agricultural residues and dairy manure – 90 MW• Forest - 50 MW
• Allocation by county based on:• Estimated resource potential and • Utility obligations (IOUs only)
• Reported as countywide potential
CAPACITY ESTIMATION, SMALL SCALE
69
• 505 MW identified
• Largely within urban areas and the Central Valley
• Price may restrict development with the exception of SB 1122 requirements (250 MW)
BIOGAS FEEDSTOCK POTENTIAL
70
• Determined potential MW using 85 percent capacity factor, 13,500 BTU/kWh heat rate, and CBC feedstock energy content data• Subtracted resources already being used • Reduced remainder by assuming one-third of supply
available for power generation
• 20 MW minimum project size for economic feasibility• Identified single and multi-county projects• Sited near existing substations• Cost of offsets for air emissions taken into account by
attempting to site projects out of South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
CAPACITY ESTIMATION, LARGE BIOMASS
71
• Large potential in northern California (forest) and Central Valley (agricultural)
• 1,075 MW identified• Agricultural – 260 MW• Forest – 660 MW• Urban Wood – 155 MW
• Lower than 2008; 2008 overstated ag. residues and urban waste, and did not account for material currently being used
LARGE SCALE BIOMASS POTENTIAL
72
73
• Fluidized bed steam generator
• Feedstock costs from GPI• $27 to 48 per dry ton (average $40)
• Capital cost vary due to size: $4700 to $6200/kW
• Operating costs also vary based on size• Fixed: $70 to 275/kW-yr• Variable: $8.4 to $9.1/MWh
• Emissions reduction credit requirements added for certain AQMDs based on ARB transaction costs• NOx and PM-10 allowances
PROJECT COSTS – LARGE SCALE
74
• Conversion technology• Digestion and reciprocating engine for biogas (η = 35%)• Gasification and reciprocating engine for biomass (η = 21%)
• Digestion• Complete mix, glass lined steel tanks• Biogas cleaning to remove moisture, H2S, and siloxanes• Engines have NOx and CO removal equipment
• Gasification• Limited commercial options at this scale• Syngas cleaning prior to feeding to engines
• Costs from B&V engineering estimates, vendor quotes, and/or public prices
PROJECT COSTS – SMALL SCALE
75
• Assumed one base case size and performance due to county level, not project level, assessment
• Solid resource costs/heat rate vary depending on feedstock used (forest vs. agricultural residue)
PROJECT COSTS – SMALL SCALE
Dairy Manure Green Waste Solid Biomass
Capital Cost ($/kW) 10,900 9,700 6,000
Operating Cost ($/kW-yr) 950 490 553
Tipping Fee ($/ton) 0 20 -30 to -50
Capacity Factor (%) 90 90 85
Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 10,000 10,000 15,000 to 17,000
76
• B&V Costs: Large facility in Fresno, CA
• 2008 facility was 70 MW but capacity reduced to 38 MW
• Biomass originally included for project is being used by other existing plants
BIOMASS COST COMPARISON WITH RETI
RETI 1B(2008) Current B&V Estimate
Capital Costs ($/kW) 4,400 5,400
Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 66 159
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 11.0 8.8
GEOTHERMAL
77
78
• No changes to original methodology
• Projects identified in RETI 2008 considered for potential• Developed project included in RETI removed from
potential
GEOTHERMAL
79
• Capital cost escalated by 5 percent from RETI 2010 estimates, which had been escalated 5 percent from RETI 2008 estimate
• B&V estimates below are for Salton Sea flash plant
GEOTHERMAL
RETI 1B(2008) Current B&V Estimate
Capital Costs ($/kW) 4,900 5,390
Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 0 344
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 41.5 0
For most recent B&V update, all O&M costs were decided to be modeled as fixed. Overall cost ($/yr) similar to previous estimate.
3. OUT OF STATE RESOURCES
80
81
• Out-of-state resources may be competitive in certain instances
• All out-of-state of resource estimates from updated Western Renewable Energy Zones Project (WREZ)• Wind• Solar PV• Solar Thermal• Geothermal• Hydro
OUT OF STATE RESOURCES
82
• Western Renewable Energy Zones was a stakeholder initiative completed by the Western Governors’ Association, DOE, and many other entities in 2009-2010• Resource analysis competed by
NREL and Black & Veatch quantified renewable energy resources in the WECC
• Analysis was updated by Black & Veatch in 2012 and 2013
• Updated Generation and Transmission Model (GTM) available on WIEB website
BACKGROUND ON WREZ
WREZ RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
• Estimates resource potential at a particular price point in each “hub”
Screening tool to assist load serving entities, regulators and renewable planners (“users”) to identify and quantify the cost of delivering renewables to load zones throughout western North America.
Includes resources initially defined by the WREZ Zone Identification and Technology Assessment (ZITA) Work Group. These have been updated for 2013 by B&V.
Resources accessed by a conceptual transmission network developed by the Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group (GTMWG). No changes in current model.
Model is Excel-based and flexible so users can customize to meet their needs. That said, the model includes methodologies and data that has been developed and vetted by industry experts.
WREZ GTM - TRANSPARENT TOOL FOR TRANSMISSION PLANNING
84
WREZ GTM INTERFACE
85
• Black & Veatch developed estimates for both projects using similar assumptions
• However, differences in cost and performance exist for several reasons:• Resource quality, especially wind• Generally higher costs in CA• Timing issues -- WREZ developed before RPS 2013• Assumptions about project size• Inclusion of gen-tie costs
• Key resources are wind and solar PV• Other resources are generally very similar
COMPARISON OF COST AND PERFORMANCE OF WREZ 2013 TO RPS 2013
86
• Out-of-state wind resources (e.g., WY, NM) are potentially lower cost and higher performance than remaining CA resources
• Transmission is constraint
WIND COMPARISON
87
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
RPS Calc(2013)
WREZ(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RPS Calc(2013)
WREZ(2013)
• Solar PV characteristics very similar
• WREZ has tighter performance band as only the best solar resources are included, versus all CA resources for RPS Calc
SOLAR PV TRACKING COMPARISON
88
Capital Cost, $/kWac Capacity Factor, %ac
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
RPS Calc(2013)
WREZ(2013)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RPS Calc(2013)
WREZ(2013)
Gen-tie costs included in PV capital costs
4. FUTURE COST DECLINES
89
90
• Forecasts are almost never correct• They are useful because they provide a best guess
and can help identify trends• Sometimes when sufficient time and information is
available, multiple forecasts are used to create scenarios to better understand the range of possibilities.
• Different forecasts can also be used for different purposes. Planning 90% GHG reduction might assume something different than what would be used to plan your next transmission investment. One might be more ambitious and the other more conservative.
IMPORTANT NOTE - NO FORECAST IS CORRECT
91
• Cost curves based on National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) study supported by Black & Veatch• Renewable Electricity Futures (REF) study completed in 2010• Stakeholder process that reviewed various technologies• Provided future performance and cost
• Results from study updated to reflect changes in market from 2010 to 2013 (cost declines projected to occur, did occur)
• The resulting curves also used for latest WREZ update
DATA SOURCE
92
NREL REF FORECASTED CAPITAL COST DECLINES (REAL $)
Year Solar PV Fixed Tilt
Solar PV Single Axis Tracking
Solar Thermal
Solar Thermal with Storage
Wind
2013 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2015 96% 95% 98% 98% 100%
2020 90% 91% 95% 95% 99%
2025 85% 88% 91% 90% 98%
2030 81% 84% 87% 86% 97%
2035 77% 81% 83% 81% 96%
2040 74% 78% 79% 77% 95%
2045 71% 76% 75% 73% 94%
2050 69% 74% 72% 68% 93%
93
REF WIND PERFORMANCE CURVES
In addition to cost, REF also provided future performance for wind
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Capa
city
Fac
tor
NREL Wind Class 3
NREL Wind Class 4
NREL Wind Class 5
NREL Wind Class 6
NREL Wind Class 7
94
• The following technologies are relatively mature. Black & Veatch does not assume their costs will improve over time:• Biomass• Biogas• Geothermal
• Capital cost provided earlier used for current and future project costs
REMAINING TECHNOLOGIES
5. ZONE IDENTIFICATION
95
• From 2008-2010, Black & Veatch worked with stakeholders to identify Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) as part of the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
• These zones were subsequently used in various different processes by various stakeholders
• In 2013-2014, Black & Veatch reassessed renewable resources to address significant improvements in technology, particularly with wind and solar PV• Resource availability much more widespread• Many new wind resources in northern California
• Updated zone definitions are needed to reflect the updated resource assessment
ZONE IDENTIFICATION
2010 RETI PHASE 2B CREZ
UPDATED RENEWABLE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
• Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, and Solar Thermal Project Locations
• Solar PV not shown, but is available across the state (see next slide)
• For wind, substantial shift north, into non-CREZ areas
• Widespread and generally good quality throughout California
• Most of resource is outside previous CREZ boundaries
SOLAR PV RESOURCE (TRACKING PV)
• New zones based on: • “Legacy” 2010 CREZ to the extent possible• Locations of ~150 projects which have been “tagged”
to zones in the CPUC’s 2012 RPS calculator• Project Development Status Reports• CEC Renewable Energy Action Team
• Expanded resource assessment (tried to not split newly identified projects into two zones)
• Transmission topology• Geographic constraints• County boundaries
PRINCIPLES FOR UPDATING ZONE BOUNDARIES
• Previous CREZ identified the best resources for large scale transmission development considering technical, economic and environmental factors• Very specific boundaries, sometimes capturing specific
project boundaries and interconnection lines• Purposefully made as small as possible (“Shrink-wrapped”)
to minimize perceived environmental footprint
• Current zones are intended to capture most of the resources in California regardless of relative economic or environmental considerations• Not for siting or environmental assessment - used for
categorization and assigning transmission upgrade cost• More comprehensive coverage - “Puzzle pieces” • Boundaries less meaningful• No particular advantage to being in a zone
DIFFERENCES FROM PREVIOUS CREZ
LEGACY CREZ (WESTLANDS AREA)
2012 CALCULATOR PROJECTS TAGGED TO CREZ
2012 CALCULATOR PROJECTS TAGGED TO CREZ
NEW “SUPER CREZ”
• All of these zones correspond with a legacy zone name or a zone in the 2012 RPS calculator (Los Banos, Central Valley North)
• Includes Southwest NV resources
• No new zones identified by B&V, except Sacramento River Valley
• Resources outsides zones summarized by county
NEW SUPER CREZ BOUNDARIES