Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Billions at Stake In Feed-In Tariff Contract Fine Print

March 22nd the Ontario government announced results of a review of it's feed-in tariff (FIT) program to contract supply of renewable energy.  The announcement did little to provide visibility on costing, for either project proponents or the ratepayers taking on the liability of the long-term contracts.  Concerns, from the suppliers' perspective, are apparent at the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) as discussions, and proposals, related to the integration of renewable energy supplies into Ontario's system are studied (SE-91).   The cost of excess supply in Ontario is likely to be over $1 billion a year, and possibly double that amount, by 2014; the fine print in the revised FIT contracts will determine how much of that cost is from curtailing payments to FIT generators, along with generation, and how much will be borne by Ontario's ratepayers.
An attendee noted that there has been some slippage in terms of the timelines for finalizing a floor price mechanism and addressing compensation/contract issues. He noted that without specifics regarding dispatch and floor price mechanisms, that developers cannot make go/no go decisions on projects.
The IESO responded ... From a contract perspective, the OPA has stated that they recognize that some language exists in contracts which do not have clear definitions. The IESO recognizes this problem for developers, but the additional clarity that developers are seeking is not yet available.           -Minutes of May 3rd SE-91 Meeting (emphasis added)


The IESO SE-91 process has noted a couple of issues indicating 'stakeholders' efforts to maximize their revenues.  The suppliers' concerns revolve primarily around proposed rules for dispatching supply off.  The IESO is passing the buck, perhaps rightly, to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), on the issue of costs related to the dispatch rules.  The OPA and IESO are targeted for merger by the government, and it is likely that final decision on rules must come from the Minister of Energy, Chris Bentley.
The cost of those rules is hugely important because of the large amounts of renewable energy that cannot be utilized by the power system.  The FIT's have defined that an amount (ie $135/MWh in FIT 1.0 for wind, $110 in FIT 2.0) is to be paid, and suppliers can show due diligence in forecasting potential production levels; the trickier figure to forecast  is how much of that possible production the grid can/should accept.

The discussions about curtailment involves issues of Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG), CO2 emissions, and exports.  The proper issue, from a ratepayer perspective, revolves around when our contracted supply, and actual baseload sources (which are sources that ouput a constant energy, meaning power, at a low marginal cost - often with huge capital costs invested up front), exceed the demand in the province.  Demand currently is remaining around the level of 2009, which is also the level of 1989, so we can anticipate little change in demand.  This allows forecasting to estimate how frequently, and by how much, our supply commitments will exceed demand.

It is now broadly acknowledged to be quite often, so the market price in Ontario should remain quite low.  In Ontario, as in many adjacent markets, the market price moves with the price of natural gas - but the price is consistently lower in Ontario than other markets.  The SE-91 hearings frequently refer to assumed export levels (~1500-2000MW).   They should not. The full cost of production cannot be recovered from exports, so the discussion on export levels is a discussion of how much power we can sell at $20/MWh before we stop paying $110 - $800/MWh to purchase the supply.
If consumers were stakeholders, the answer would be, "none".

Last year I analysed the costs of adding wind energy to Ontario's electricity system, within the supply context of the Liberal government's Long Term Energy Plan, in part by forecasting supply and demand on an hourly basis through 2022.  My assumption at the time, I hope wrongly, was all FIT contracts would pay out on all production, even if it was curtailed.  That analysis estimated 3 costs attributable to intermittent wind:

  • the cost of surplus baseload generation
  • the cost of avoided hydro production
  • the cost of capacity payments to natural gas/coal generators
SBG cost, and the avoided hydro, should be valued at the price of wind ouput, as this is the cost to the consumer of purchasing wind output while letting water flow over the falls, instead of through the turbines in the Niagara system - or other foregone hydro.  It is also the cost when paying nuclear units to curtail production while paying full price for wind output, and it is very close to the price when purchasing expensive electricity strictly for export at 1/6th the price (which is the case so far in 2012).  My 2011 analysis showed the cost of wind, when paying for every MWh produced, would be ~$263/MWh, for the utilized production, by 2014.

Thing have gotten worse since then, with the scheduled addtions of capacity accelerated, and the FIT 2.0 announcement adding wind (to ~8000MW) and all renewables to 10700 (so ~2700MW of solar capacity).   I have rerun my data exercise, adding in a solar estimation and the scheduled changes to wind capacity.  The numbers provide the magnitude of the importance in settling compensation rules, if there is to be any compensation, for curtailed/dispatched down supply.  Most years ~40% of industrial wind production will either bump other contracted generation, be curtailed, or be dumped on export markets.


Wind Surplus Foregone Hydro Utilized Wind % of Wind Utilized Cost of Wind Not Utilized ($Ms @ $122/MWh) Nuclear Hydro Gas/Coal Wind Solar Total
2011 3.9 0.6 0.3 3 77% $110 84.9 33.5 19.1 3.9 0.3 141.7
2012 5.5 1.1 0.6 3.9 70% $195 85.1 33.2 16.5 5.5 0.5 140.8
2013 9 2.2 1.6 5.2 58% $464 88.7 33.0 12.5 9.0 0.8 144.0
2014 16.5 5.6 4.6 6.3 38% $1,244 90.2 31.1 10.4 16.5 1.6 149.8
2015 19.6 4 3.4 12.3 62% $891 76.0 34.1 13.5 19.6 2.4 145.7
2016 20.7 4.9 4.3 11.4 55% $1,135 76.0 33.3 13.6 20.7 2.9 146.5
2017 20.7 4.5 4.2 11.9 58% $1,074 76.0 33.4 13.0 20.7 3.1 146.2
2018 20.6 4.7 4.5 11.4 55% $1,122 76.0 34.0 12.6 20.6 3.1 146.4
2019 20.6 4.3 4.3 12 58% $1,049 76.0 34.2 12.2 20.6 3.1 146.1
2020 21.2 4.9 4.4 11.9 56% $1,135 77.6 34.8 12.4 21.2 3.1 149.1
2021 20.7 4.7 4.1 11.9 57% $1,074 76.0 34.2 12.5 20.7 3.1 146.5
2022 20.4 4 3.7 12.7 62% $939 71.8 34.5 14.7 20.4 3.1 144.5

I've included annual totals to demonstrate what this forecast measures.  Hourly forecast for demand are made for demand, nuclear, contracted must take supply (NUG's), baseload hydro, wind, and solar.  If that supply is not enough to meet demand (ie. NOT SBG), then the weekly forecast of available hydro is distributed (if it can't all be used, it is considered 'foregone hydro' as shown in the chart.  If there is still unmet demand, it is considered to be met by 'Gas/Coal' generation.  

In reality, gas and coal generation units have more operating constraints than the model allows.  The actual figure in 2011 for those units was closer to 27.3 TWh (not the 19.1 shown as necessary in my modelling).   Practically, this means the model likely exaggerates the proportion of wind output that is utilized to meet domestic demand.

I have not discussed the capacity charges one might attribute to wind, nor the cost to Ontario's treasury of depressed pricing and dispatched off hydro.  Neither of these issues deals specifically with the issue at hand in clarifying rules regarding dispatching off of renewable supply; rules that are uncertain in not only FIT 2.0, but also apparently remain vague in FIT 1.0 contracts.

Will Mr. Bentley commit Ontario ratepayers to spending ~$1 billion a year for dispatched off, or dumped, FIT contracted energy?

Hopefully Mr. Bentley does not use history to guide his decision.  We know Ernie Eves rate freeze added billions, over 3 or 4 years, to the debt repayment schedule, and we know Dalton McGuinty's OCEB is also taking about $1 billion a year from Ontario's line of credit.  

We have a word for politicians who show reckless disregard for the public purse with billion dollar decisions in the electricity sector.

We call them, "Premier"



19 comments:

  1. Thanks on your marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you
    are a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and may
    come back very soon. I want to encourage that you continue your
    great posts, have a nice holiday weekend!

    Feel free to surf to my homepage - bankruptcy attorney florida

    ReplyDelete
  2. I couldn't resist commenting. Very well written!

    my blog post: Windows Xp Registry Cleaner

    ReplyDelete
  3. No matter if some one searches for his required thing, therefore he/she needs to be available that
    in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.

    Here is my homepage - flying airplane games

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other blogs?
    I have a blog based on the same subjects you discuss and would really like to have you
    share some stories/information. I know my readers would appreciate your work.
    If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send
    me an e-mail.

    My web blog - saffronextractreview123.Weebly.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read this post fully regarding the resemblance of newest and earlier technologies, it's amazing article.

    my web blog: master cleanse weight loss

    ReplyDelete
  6. Touche. Solid arguments. Keep up the great work.

    My blog post :: acsocial.tk

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's awesome to visit this web site and reading the views of all friends about this piece of writing, while I am also keen of getting familiarity.

    Review my homepage ... acid reflux remedies

    ReplyDelete
  8. Today, I went to the beachfront with my children.

    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and
    said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed the shell to her ear and screamed.
    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to
    go back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I
    had to tell someone!

    My homepage; lose weight

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ι don't knoiw if іt's just me or if everyone elѕe
    encountering ρroblems with your site. It looks likе some of tҺe written text ѡithin үour posts
    are running off tɦе screen. Ϲaո someone else please provide feedback and lett me кnow if
    this is happening to thеm аs աell? Thhis might Ƅе a pгoblem ԝith
    my internet browser Ьecause ӏ've had thіs happen рreviously.
    Kudos

    mү homepage; inexpensive cell phone plans

    ReplyDelete
  10. A good goal would be quite large. This supplement is not
    bodybuilder shirts just muscles. It's a good diet and a stricter diet.
    It is easy to forget the importance of digestive enzyme supplement is seldom discussed on muscle retention mode.
    Many of you and why you cannot allow yourself to quitting,
    as one. Besides that, you will have bodybuilder
    shirts a mind boggling experience. If you are gaining
    fat for bodybuilder shirts natural bodybuilding is impossible to read
    this Cell Tech Creatine for improving muscle definition.

    my web page :: bodybuilding arnold schwarzenegger

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on websites
    I stumbleupon everyday. It's always helpful to
    read through articles from other writers and
    practice a little something from their web sites.


    my page lainaa heti

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi there! I know this is somewhat off-topic
    but I had to ask. Does running a well-established blog such as yours require a massive amount
    work? I'm completely new to running a blog but I
    do write in my journal everyday. I'd like to start a blog so I can easily share my
    own experience and views online. Please let me know if you have
    any suggestions or tips for new aspiring blog owners.
    Appreciate it!

    Here is my blog post - quick weight loss center Reviews

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its like you rerad my mind! Yoս appear to know sօ much about thіs,
    like you wroe the book in it or sοmething.

    I think that you can do with a few picss to drivе the messaɡe home a little
    bit, but innstead of that, thiѕ is excellent blog. An excellent read.
    I will definittely be bаck.

    my homepage :: how to remove stretch marks home remedies

    ReplyDelete
  14. The most important thing is always to charge fully discharged
    each month. The Omega 8006, like other Omega juicers, can be a horizontal single gear masticating juicer.
    Some years, you could possibly not require it whatsoever and feel that
    you have wasted the money on the premium.


    My web blog :: compare home warranty companies

    ReplyDelete
  15. " The witch's hold over the town immediately vanishes. Even the easiest option, it's catchy to complete the sport with no cheat more. Furnished using mixed media, the combination of dark wood, light wicker, crisp white linen and sparkling accents in the form of cushions and throws in different colours - red, black, bronze, gold and pink-tinged green - in each, the bedrooms are spacious and simple chic in style.

    my web page - tap paradise cove cheats

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dar nu peste o fac așa cum va părea șleampăt la
    el . Când ești copil , te - nici o îndoială , prețuit pe terenul
    de joacă . Dar, recent , el a fost sentimentul pe care vă par a fi deține până bine
    pe propriul cont propriu .

    Have a look at my blog; Rusty []

    ReplyDelete
  17. I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest
    but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I'll go ahead and bookmark your website to come
    back down the road. Cheers

    Also visit my site; http://azbook.az/

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Colorado Electrician should also be able to rip off contractors.
    On the other hand, work with them, and the case was heard after evidence about the Forum to kick start your sales funnel empty?
    It is one of these power contractor at high risk.


    Feel free to visit my web page - webpage ()

    ReplyDelete
  19. We stumbled over here coming from a different website and thought I may as
    well check things out. I like what I see so now i'm following you.
    Look forward to looking over your web page for a second time.


    Also visit my weblog http://kidsmicroscope.co

    ReplyDelete