Qualifying Facility Program Implementation Workshop Elizabeth Stoltzfus Bob Strauss Molly Sterkel Energy Division San Francisco November 14-15, 2007
Qualifying Facility Program Implementation Workshop Elizabeth Stoltzfus
Bob StraussMolly SterkelEnergy Division
San FranciscoNovember 14-15, 2007
2
Agenda November 14th 10:00-10:15 Welcome 10:15-12:00 Market Heat
Rate (MHR) calculation 12:00-1:00 Lunch 1:00-2:00 TOU factors 2:00-2:30 Calculation of gas
price 2:30-3:00 Gas price data
sources 3:00-3:30 Electricity price
data sources 3:30-3:45 Updating O&M 3:45-4:00 SRAC posting
November 15th
10:00-10:30 Extension of expiring contracts
10:30-11:00 As-available capacity payments
11:00-11:30 Method for rejection
11:30-12:00 Process of protesting
12:00-1:00 Lunch 1:00-1:15 EEI Master
Contract 1:15-1:45 CAC/EPUC draft
contract 1:45-2:15 IOU draft contract 2:15-4:00 SO contract
3
Goal
The goal of this workshop is consensus building on the implementation of Decision 07-09-04.
4
Format
Decision guidance Sample of perspectives CPUC recommendation Discussion
5
After the workshop
Highlights of workshop Joint IOU tier 3 advice letter (AL)
Contains: Exact data sets Implementation methodology
Within 30 days of workshop (12/16/07) Individual IOU tier 3 advice letter
Standard offer contracts Within 60 days of workshop (1/15/08)
6
Advice Letter process
20 day period for protests by parties 5 days for IOUs to reply to protests Energy Division (ED) considers AL within 30
days unless suspended Draft resolution sent to service list
10 day comment period 30 days on Commission calendar Resolution voted on by Commission
7
Result
Adopted by Resolution: Finalized data sets and methodology Finalized standard offer contract for each IOU
Market Heat Rate (MHR) calculation
Rolling average of forward electricity price
9
Decision guidance on MHR
“In calculating the [MHR] using NP15/SP15 indices, rather than using historical prices, we will use a 12-month rolling average of the weighted average price of the forward market prices for NP15 (for PG&E) or SP15 (for SCE and SDG&E)…variable O&M shall be deducted from the market prices used to calculate the market based heat rate” (p. 67)
10
Decision guidance on weighted average “The monthly weighted average power price
is determined as follows. The monthly peak power price is weighted 57% and the off-peak power price is weighted 43%” (p. 7)
(Forward energy price – VO&M) / (Border gas price + Intrastate transportation)*1000 = HR MHR = (ΣHR1…HR12)/12
(Adapted from Table 3)
11
Rolling average
A rolling average or simple moving average (SMA) is the mean of the previous n data points. For example, a 10-day simple moving average of closing price is the mean of the previous 10 days' closing prices. If those prices are pM, pM − 1... pM − 9 then the formula is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_average
12
MHR calculation proposals
Data collection Weekly Monthly
Polling Sample from 3 prior months Sample from prior month Sample from 12 prior months
13
CPUC proposal on MHR calculation Data collection
Monthly average across sources Collect 12 months of forwards each month Average of samples from prior 12 months for
following month For example: Forward price for Jan ‘08 = Average(12 month
forward price as of Jan ‘07, 11 month forward price as of Feb ‘07, …1 month forward price as of Dec ‘07)
Time of Use (TOU) factors
SRAC TOU
MPR TOU
15
Decision guidance on TOU factors “we believe that updating the IOUs’ TOU/TOD
factors and periods to be consistent with the TOU factors adopted in other procurement proceedings is reasonable…the TOD factors are too flat to adequately reflect the differential in prices in peak and off-peak periods. In light of this, we believe it is appropriate to adopt TOU factors that are consistent with the adopted TOU factors for the Market Price Referent (MPR).” (p. 74)
16
TOU factors proposals
Map MPR TOU factors to SRAC TOU periods SCE same TOU periods Hour-to-hour mapping PG&E, SDG&E
TOU implementation Apply to both energy and capacity Apply to just energy Use only “energy component” of TOU factors
17
Proposed TOU factors for PG&EPeak Partial
PeakOff-Peak Super
Off-Peak
Summer (May-Oct)
1.70 1.14 0.84 0.74
Winter (Nov-Apr)
NA 1.10 0.94 0.79
18
Proposed TOU factors for SCE
On Peak Mid Peak Off-Peak Super Off-Peak
Summer (Jun-Sep)
3.28 1.28 0.67 NA
Winter (Oct-May)
NA 1. 02 0.82 0.65
19
Proposed TOU factors for SDG&E
On- Peak Semi- Peak
Off-Peak Super Off- Peak
Summer (May-Sep)
1.50 0.99 0.87 0.57
Winter (Oct-Apr)
1.34 1. 16 0.99 0.69
20
CPUC proposal on TOU factors Extension of expiring contracts
Map MPR TOU factors to PG&E, SDG&E SRAC TOU factors
SCE TOU periods are the same Apply MPR TOU factors to energy payment
New contracts Apply MPR TOU factors to energy payment Use MPR TOU periods
Calculation of gas price
Intrastate gas transportation rates
22
Decision guidance on gas prices “we adopt a burnertip gas price for use in calculating
SRAC. We will allow SDG&E and the other utilities to annually update the intrastate transportation rate to the most recent value in their gas tariffs, as necessary. For example, if border gas at Malin is $6.00/MMBtu and intra-state transportation is $0.50/MMBtu, the burner-tip gas price is $6.50/MMBtu…for SCE and SDG&E, SRAC shall be based on the Topock border price, while SRAC for PG&E shall be based on a 50/50 weighting of published border prices at Malin and Topock.“ (p. 72)
23
Gas price proposals
Border price calculation already in effect Intrastate transportation costs
SCE follow current methodology Schedule G-AA, EG, and G-SUR for PG&E Schedule GT-F5 and G-MSUR for SCE Schedule EG and GP-SUR for SDG&E Firm Access Rights (FAR)
Update frequency of intra-state transportation costs Monthly Annually As needed
24
SCE current methodology
(GT-F5) + (ITCS) + (G-MSUR) Where:
GT-F5 = Firm Intrastate Transmission Service, for electric generation, for customers using 3 million therms or more per year (Schedule GT-F)
ITCS = Interstate Transition Cost Surcharge (Schedule GT-F)
G-MSUR = Transported Gas Municipal Surcharge (Schedule G-MSUR) = Surcharge % outside the city of Los Angeles x (G-CPA) x Imputed Franchise Fee Factor
G-CPA = The rate used for purposes of calculating the municipal surcharge as defined in Schedule G-MSUR (Schedule G-CP, G-CPA)
25
PG&E proposed methodology
(G-AFT ) + (G-EG) + G-SUR Where: G-AFT = Average (firm Redwood On-System
transmission rate, Baja On-System transmission rate) plus applicable shrinkage for the relevant delivery path (PG&E G-AFT and Gas Rule 21).
G-EG = Applicable variable transportation charge for electric generator service under the G-EG tariff.
G-SUR = Gas Franchise Fee Surcharge, in effect on the first day of the pertinent SRAC posting month.
26
SDG&E proposed methodology (EG) + (GP-SUR) Where: EG = rate from tariff schedule EG for
customers using 3 million therms or more per year
GP-SUR = The rate used for purposes of calculating the municipal surcharge as defined in Schedule GP-SUR
27
CPUC proposal on gas prices
Sum of applicable tariffs SCE: (GT-F5) + (ITCS) + (G-MSUR) SDG&E: (EG) + (GP-SUR) PG&E: (G-AFT) + (G-EG) + (G-SUR)
Update intra-state transportation costs annually or with changes in tariffs
Border price calculation already in effect
Gas price data sources
Border gas price
Gas forwards
29
Decision guidance on gas price data sources “For PG&E in its May 2006 SRAC posting,
the utility takes (1) the average of three Malin bidweek gas indices as reported in Gas Daily, Natural Gas Intelligence, and Natural Gas Weekly…For SCE in its May 2006 SRAC posting, the utility takes (1) the average of three Malin bidweek gas indices as reported in Gas Daily, Natural Gas Intelligence, and Natural Gas Weekly…SDG&E makes the same calculation as SCE.” (p. 71)
30
Proposals for gas price determination Border price
Gas Daily Natural Gas Intelligence Natural Gas Weekly Btu Daily Gas Wire
MHR uses burnertip gas price NYMEX for gas forwards
31
CPUC proposal on gas price determination Border price
Gas Daily Natural Gas Intelligence Natural Gas Weekly
MHR uses burnertip price NYMEX for gas forwards
Electricity price data sources
Determine appropriate data sources
33
Decision guidance on electricity price data sources “The forward market prices will be based on a
weighted average price of the forward market prices for North of Path 15 (NP15) or South of Path 15 (SP15), as reported in Platts Megawatt Daily and/or the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)” (pp. 6-7)
34
Proposals on electricity price data sources Platts MW Daily Platts and ICE Tullet Prebon Amerex TFS Energy Kiodex
35
CPUC proposal on electricity price data sources Platts MW Daily
Updating O&M
Timing
37
Decision guidance on O&M adder “SDG&E proposes to use the 2004 value for
the variable cost of a CCGT adopted in Phase 1…We concur with this approach and adopt it for use in the SRAC energy formulae for the three utilities. However, the O&M shall be escalated by 2% per year” (p. 70)
38
Proposals for updating O&M adder Escalate by 2% on January 1st of each year Use four significant digits
39
CPUC proposal on O&M adder Escalate by 2% on January 1st of each year Use four significant digits
SRAC posting
Day of month
Format
41
Decision guidance on SRAC posting “IOUs should post the monthly SRAC
energy prices and annual capacity prices on their websites and file the prices with the Commission’s Energy Division and DRA.” (p.150)
42
Proposals for SRAC posting
Spreadsheet template of data Posted on first business day of the month Electronic copy to ED
43
CPUC proposal on SRAC posting Posted on the Web and mailed/emailed to ED
and DRA on the first business day of the month
Electronic copy to ED
Extension of expiring contracts
Notifying and securing the extension termsCapacity and energy price provisions Term of the extensionProcess for moving to the new Standard Offer
45
Decision guidance on expiring or expired contracts “Two Standard Contract Options for
Expiring or Expired QF Contracts and New QFs: One- to Five-Year As-Available Power Contract. One- to Ten-Year Firm, Unit-Contingent Power
Contract.
QFs will also continue to have the option of either participating in Investor-Owned Utilities (IOU) power solicitations, or negotiating bilateral contracts with the IOUs.” (p. 2)
46
Decision guidance on contract extensions “D.04-01-050 also put parties on notice that certain
renewed contracts would be subject to subsequent changes in pricing methodologies that may result from this rulemaking. D.05-12-009, continued the interim relief provided in D.04-01-050 for QFs with expired or expiring contracts until the Commission issues a final decision in the combined dockets, R.04-04-003 and R.04-04-025. We issue that final decision today…we opt to make it available to QFs that are, or were, on contract extensions approved in D.02-08-071, D.03-12-062, D.04-01-050, and D.05-12-009. “ (p. 18)
47
Decision guidance on expiring contracts continued “The QF may extend the non-price terms and
conditions of the expiring contract and continue service with the pricing set forth in this Decision until the final contract is available.” (p. 126)
48
Proposals for expiring contracts Option to shift to firm capacity terms and pricing if
previously under a firm capacity contract Process for notifying and securing the extension
terms Precise designation of capacity and energy price
provisions Term of the extension Process for moving to the new Standard Offer
contract
49
CPUC proposal on expiring contracts MIF goes into effect on first business day of
the month following finalized Resolution for Joint IOU Tier 3 AL
Capacity and energy price provisions based upon the Resolution for Tier 3 Joint IOU AL
Initiate SO contract as soon the resolution for the applicable individual IOU Tier 3 AL is finalized
Extension term ends when new contract is in place
As-available capacity payments
Escalation
51
Decision guidance on as-available capacity payments “Using a levelized nominal dollar value to compute the CT cost
would overstate the avoided capacity cost as well as present additional cost and risk for utilities and ratepayers.
Using an economic carrying charge rate, escalated for inflation over the life of the contract, allows us to provide more flexibility in contract terms, from one year up to ten years with the same CT cost estimate.For purposes of calculating payments for as-available capacity, it is reasonable to adopt the CT cost and real economic carrying charge rate calculations proposed by TURN as presented in Exhibit 149, Appendix B, with an ancillary services adjustment and an energy benefit adjustment subtracted from the adopted value as suggested by SDG&E and TURN. ” (pp. 146-147)
52
Proposals for as-available capacity pricing escalation Escalate CT annual capital cost on Jan. 1 of
each year Inflation rate
US Army Corps of Engineers 2.5%
53
CPUC proposal on as-available capacity pricing escalation Escalate CT annual capital cost on Jan. 1 of
each year Use US Army Corps of Engineers index
Method for rejection
Criteria
Notification
55
Decision guidance on method for rejection “We do not want to see erosion of the utilities’ QF
supplies, therefore we expect that as old QF contracts expire, new or renewed QF contracts will replace them. However, if a QF over 20 MW seeks access to one of the contract options described above, the IOU must determine if it would be inconsistent with the existing need determination from the Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceeding. Further, the utility must consult with its Procurement Review Group (PRG) within 20 days of receiving a contract request from a QF. The PRG consultation period shall be initiated within 20 days of receiving a contract offer from a QF.” (p. 123)
56
Decision guidance on method for rejection continued “For small QFs, the IOUs may not deny one of
the two contracting options described herein on the basis of oversubscription unless the total capacity of QF power would, with the proposed contract, exceed 110% of the utilities QF capacity as of the date of this decision.” (p. 150)
57
Proposals for method of rejection Written notification that includes detailed
reasoning for rejection based on the LTPP For large QFs, reject QF only if
Addition would make the IOU’s QF capacity greater than that listed in D.07-09-040
LTPP doesn’t include unfilled need for additional generation
For small QFs, reject if LTPP doesn’t include unfilled need for additional generation
58
CPUC proposal on methods for rejection Written notification to the CPUC and QF that
includes detailed reasoning for rejection based on the LTPP
For large QFs, reject QF only if Addition would make the IOU’s QF capacity greater than
that listed in D.07-09-040 LTPP doesn’t include unfilled need for additional
generation For small QFs, reject only if LTPP doesn’t include
unfilled need for additional generation and above small QF cap
Process of protesting
QF options
60
Decision guidance on protests “If a QF believes that a contract is being
unreasonably withheld, it may file a complaint with the Commission.” (p. 123)
61
Proposals for protests
Clear methodology for protests QFs have same protest rights as prior to
D.96-12-028 File protests under R.06-02-013 proceeding
62
CPUC proposal on protests
QFs have same protest rights as prior to D.96-12-028
File protests under R.06-02-013 proceeding
Contract presentations
EEI Master Contract
CAC and EPUC draft contract
Joint IOU draft contract
Standard Offer (SO) contract
Decision guidance
65
Decision guidance on SO contracts “The EEI contract will be the basis for our
Prospective QF Program contract options, however, a simplified version of the EEI contract shall be utilized for Small QFs.” (p. 3)
“First, QFs who choose only to provide non-firm, as-available power will have access to a one- to five-year as-available contract…Second, we will make available a one-to-ten-year contract for firm unit-contingent power” (p. 8)
66
Decision guidance on SO contracts continued “the firm power contact option adopted in this
decision establishes a higher level of performance by imposing penalties to the capacity payment for failure to deliver 95% of the contract power during on-peak months and 90% of the contract power during off-peak months (not counting scheduled outages).” (p. 97)
67
Decision guidance on SO contracts continued “QFs with expiring contracts seeking to sign
new unit-firm contracts shall not have to provide additional credit support, nor should they be required to perform additional interconnection studies. QFs larger than one megawatt are responsible for scheduling coordination, although the utilities must offer scheduling service to QFs at a reasonable cost.” (p. 122)
68
Decision guidance on SO contracts continued “New contracts must explicitly take the
existence of the CAISO and its tariff requirements into account. We adopt PG&E’s recommendation that QFs one MW or greater should be required to comply with the CAISO tariffs.” (p.135)
69
Proposals for SO contracts
Energy Metered Net electrical output
Payment Change to reflect current SRAC pricing MIF
Capacity Established by seller Established by seller subject to demonstration
70
Proposals for SO contracts continued Capacity payment
Reduced for failure to meet performance standards
Seasonal availability payment No payment intervals in which seller fails to
deliver Net Contract Capacity Forecasts
Seller provides Provided on day and intraday basis
71
Proposals for SO contracts continued CAISO charges
Seller pays imbalance charges Buyer pays all charges
Seller must enter into a Participating Generator Agreement with CAISO
Term commencement date 1st day of the month following seller’s completion
of necessary preparations Designated by seller
72
Proposals for SO contracts continued Scheduled outages
Advance notice annually Advance notice annually and quarterly No outages June-Sept. Buyer coordinates outages with CAISO Seller coordinates outages with CAISO
Buyer sole recipient of resource adequacy attributes
73
Proposals for SO contracts continued Environmental costs
Buyer pays costs incurred after 9/20/07 Seller pays
Force majeure provisions
74
CPUC proposal on SO contracts Comply with D.07-09-040
Include renewables and cogen Firm and as-available contracts QFs responsible for scheduling if sufficiently large Simplified contract for small QFs Penalty for failure to meet firm performance
requirements