We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byReilly Lynes
Modified about 1 year ago
Fort Pierce Repowering Project 04/24/01
1 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Recommendations Go forward with the project on a combined-cycle basis with a commercial operation date of October Current development cost it at $3.6MM with capital exposure of $2.4MM. Monitization at cost is likely with TECO or other 3 rd party Contract strategy with Ft. Pierce to sign the following: Participation Agreement Ground Lease O&M Agreement Tolling Agreement (Steam Agreement) Interconnection Agreement Suspend engineering expenditures as of Friday, April 27, 2001 and authorize the following expenditures until the completion of contracts with FPUA. $600K of engineering support to cover expenditures from April 15th – April 27th (two weeks) Enter into Physical Delivery Gas Contract with Gas Desk through Phase VI and purchase long term Phase VI capacity from FGT. (May 4 th – May 11 th )
2 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Estimated Project Valuation - Comparison ASSUMPTIONS Pre-tax analysis 278 MWs of output from June 2002 – 2031 Heat Rate – Combined cycle heat rate of 7,080 btu/kWh HHV – FPRP heat rate of 6,068 btu/kWh HHV 93% Availability Gas prices based on ICF curves plus EA transport surcharge Power prices based on ICF curves 50/50 Debt to equity ratio Project life = 30 years (25 years + 5 year option) Terminal Value = Assumed 0 Case 1 assumes June 2002 start using a by-pass stack Case 2 assumes October 2002 start using a dump condenser Case 1VSCase 2 Simple-cycle June 2002;Combined-cycle October 2002 Combined-cycle October 2002 NPV 17% = $24.3MMNPV 17% = $19.2MM
3 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Major Project Risks Commercial Risks Large capital expenditure without gain of asset(s) Material change in long-dated view of Florida market Default of FPUA under the Steam Agreement may collapse the value of the asset Development Risks Air permit may not allow simple-cycle operations with emissions in excess of 25ppm NO x (currently, Mitsubishi’s maximum guaranty is 25ppm NO x ). Supply of Natural Gas Suspend activities until FPUA has signed PA, Ground Lease, O&M and Tolling Agreements PA has unilateral termination by Enron through October 2001 Step-in rights (legally questionable) thin ability for Enron to build its own steam turbine to re-capture value of Steam Agreement in electric capacity & energy minus construction time Change by-pass stack to dump condenser which allows for simple-cycle like operation under projected air permit Enter into a Physical Supply Contract with East Desk Pre-FGT Phase VI & purchase long term Phase VI capacity
4 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Major Project Risks Development Risks (continued) Interconnection and transmission agreements – FPUA Interconnection at King Plant – FPUA Transmission – FPL Transmission – Certain – In flux, physical capacity exists but FPUA only has direct control of 135MWs of the 196MWs required; Vero Beach has contractual control of remaining. Recommend Enron negotiate directly with Vero and FMPA for the gap and later with Grid Florida as these transmission lines will be ISO jurisdictional. – FPL presently cooperating with Enron/FPUA on upgrading the present agreement. Net flow is into grid therefore no major hurdles are anticipated.
5 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Major Project Risks Development Risks (continued) Mitsubishi turbine Finance Risks Off-balance sheet financing in Turbo Park EPC Wrap Legal Risks Contract Enforceability Requires Japanese consent to move into this project. Development team working on consent and technical modifications. Rush nature of project makes Turbo Park compliance tricky. Could potentially trip over hard cost before reaching criteria for Turbo Park Phase I. Pushing project into Fall 2002 will help to mitigate The preferred “wraps” of Turbo Park seem to be above EPC wraps offered in today’s construction market. May have to settle for a series of wraps or pay significant premium to achieve total project financing. May have to find alternative construction financing in a vehicle such as AIG High… No certainty that certain protections afforded Florida Municipalities (for example, sovereign immunity) are effectively waived or that other FPRP Protections (for example, step in rights and indemnities) are enforceable. Qualified opinion of outside counsel will be obtained as to enforceability.
6 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Major Project Risks Legal Risks (continued) Limited Recourse Transmission and Interconnection Limited Development Discretion Even if contracts are fully enforceable, FPUA’s ability to collect damages against FPUA is limited by FPUA’s prior pledge of FPUA revenues in connection with bond financing. With certain exceptions, FPUA’s liability is limited to $3MM. Specific performance remedy to compel FPUA to perform contract obligations subject to certain limitations. There is no firm transmission available from FPUA absent future agreements with FPUA and FMPA, which agreements may not be obtained. Enron can take legal action to compel access to transmission or construct own transmission facilities. Aesthetic Agreement to placate city gives city unusually broad discretion over development costs and schedules based on city planner’s subjective evaluation of project aesthetics. Aesthetic Agreement provides appeals process to Florida Circuit Court.
7 Fort Pierce Repowering Project L.L.C. (“FPRP”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Enron Americas, intends to repower the existing power generation facilities of the H. D. King Plant (“King Plant”) owned by the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (“FPUA”) located in Fort Pierce, Florida. The repowering will require FPUA to lease to FPRP approximately two acres of land on the King Plant property on which FPRP will build a new power generation facility (“FPRP Plant”) consisting of a Mitsubishi 501F combustion turbine (the “Turbine”) and a Cockerill Mechanical Industries (“CMI”) heat recovery steam generator (“HRSG”). A total of approximately 278 MWs will be generated by the FPRP Plant and the King Plant, an estimated 196 MWs of net output from the FPRP Facility and 82 MWs from the #7 and #8 steam turbines in the King Plant. The combined-cycle heat rate of the facilities will equal approximately 7,080 btu/kWh high heating value (“HHV”). Steam will be sourced to the King Plant at a heat rate of 9,500 btu/kWh HHV (an improvement to the 12,000 btu/kWh HHV steam it is currently generating from its two existing boilers). Due to this arrangement, FPRP will enjoy a reduced net heat rate equivalent of approximately 6,068 btu/kWh HHV, provided the King Plant is running. FPUA intends to reimburse FPRP for consumed steam through a natural gas fuel allocation. In the event the King Plant is not running its steam turbines, FPRP has the right, but not the obligation, to toll the #7 and #8 King Plant turbines and generate the estimated 278 MWs for its own account at the combined cycle heat rate of approximately 7,080 btu/kWh HHV. ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Deal Overview
8 Combined-cycle power generation in Florida by Fall 2002 Attains combined cycle heat rate without requiring FPPSA approval Innovative solution provides for combined cycle equivalent heat rate power generation via the implementation of cogeneration Municipal as well as FP&L load service opportunities Document status/terms – Structured to be Turbopark compliant (subject to bank review) FPRP to be sold out of Turbopark prior to commercial operations – HRSG contract executed with CMI (completion milestone payments commence June 2001) – Remainder of definitive agreements executed by FPRP & FPUA by May 2001 – Fort Pierce City Commission > 04/23/01 – FPUA Board Meeting > 04/24/01 – FPUA obligation to buy steam if FPRP generating – FPRP option to toll FPUA units when not dispatched by FMPA for power sales to third parties – Specific performance remedy Right to substitute steam turbine at FPRP Facility if King Plant is not operating ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Deal Highlights
9 Estimated Completion Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issuedMarch 2001 Public approvals Site plan/conditional useFebruary 2001 Ground LeaseApril 2001 (City vote 4/23/01) FPUA remediation/tank removal > clean site deliveredApril 2001 (90% complete; closing letter due 4/30/01) Final contracts with FPUA (CPs to continuing)May 4, 2001 (FPUA vote to approve 4/24/01) Gas Supply AgreementsMay 4, 2001 (If CPs are met) Transmission FP&L Feasibility StudyMay 2001 FPUA provides transmission capacity to FP&LMay 2001 MHI Turbine Assignment of ContractsMay – June 2001 Air Permit grantedAugust 2001 Architectural complianceOngoing ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Development Status (Updated)
10 Estimated Completion Selection of EPC contractorMay 2001 Project phased into Turbopark May 2001 Commence hard costs Ground breaking (contingent upon Air Permit)September 2001 Combined Cycle (Cogen) OperationsOctober 2002 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Construction Timing
11 ©2001 Enron Proprietary and Confidential Information Projected Costs $MM Committed Costs (expenses through 4/15/01)$3.4* – Engineering$1.7 – Development$1.0 – Legal$0.7 Current DASH Request (expenses through 5/30/01)$4.7 – Engineering$3.5 – Equipment Options $0.6 – Development/Legal$0.6 Final DASH Request (expenses through COD) $155.6 Project Total $163.7 * The $3.4MM includes the $2.481MM approved in the I-DASH and $0.921MM of development related expenditures and tasking letters.
0 Case Study: Plum Point Energy Project Financing a Public Power Minority Investment in a Developer Sponsored Merchant Coal Plant Edward P. Meyers Goldman,
Export-Import Bank of the United States “Financing Renewable Energy Exports” Craig O’Connor Environmental Liaison Officer Presentation to APEC Renewable.
Public-Private Partnerships: In Search of a Paradigm Roger D. Stark Partner Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP (202)
Sharon Canavan Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Stephen Tracy Novogradac & Company LLP Darren Vant Hof U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation.
Critical Issues in Joint Development and Joint Ownership Projects: Roles, Rights and Obligations William S. Andrews Nixon Peabody LLP Suite th.
SB 32 Feed-in-Tariff Joint IOU Form PPA Workshop Participating IOUs : Southern California Edison – Bill Walsh, Jerry Isaac, Todd Larsen San Diego Gas and.
J A N U A R Y 1 9, J A N U A R Y 1 9, U R G E N T I S S U E S I N E N E R G Y F I N A N C I N G SU R G E N T I S S U E S I N E N E R G Y.
Cross-Border Infrastructure: A Toolkit Project Finance Session on Finance Sidharth Sinha Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad The views expressed.
Undertaking PPP Projects: Feasibility Stage Vickram Cuttaree The World Bank St. Petersburg – May 23, 2008.
Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional.
1 Mark J. Riedy, Esq. Partner Andrews Kurth LLP 1350 I Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., USA Office: ; Mobile:
1 Chinese Regulation of Foreign Business James V. Feinerman James M. Morita Professor of Asian Legal Studies Georgetown University Law Center.
CONURBANT - IEE/10/380/SI An inclusive peer-to-peer approach to involve EU CONURBations and wide areas in participating to the.
Illinois Department of Transportation FTA Procurement Procedures April 1, 2014 Presented by: Rich Garrity, Senior Associate.
Developing A Policy Driven Budget Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity Community Issues Satellite Workshops.
IPED Boston Conference The Municipal Auction Market Dislocation April 2008 Matthew Pearson (212)
Federal, State & Private Role in Financing P3's April 26, 2007 Presentation for: Regarding:
Confidential and Proprietary, ©2007 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Renewable Portfolio Standards: A Review of Compliance and Enforcement Options Ryan Katofsky.
Sunil Bhattacharya January TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONS WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY PROCUREMENT OF PLANT DESIGN, SUPPLY, AND INSTALLATION UNDER BANK PROJECTS--SOME.
Energy Storage Due Diligence WEDNESDAY, January 26, 2011 The Role of Energy Storage in PV Projects PRODUCED BY EUCI January 31, 2011.
The Green New DealEnergy and the Stimulus Bill American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Stan Renas Scott Sonnenblick April 25, 2009.
Corporate Profile. About Us We are an unique Realty & Lifestyle Consulting Company. We offer advisory services to clients for development of residential/commercial/mixed.
Webinar #10: Trading Market Fundamentals Moderator:Sonia Hamel, New America Foundation Speakers:Olivia Hartridge, Morgan Stanley Gia Schneider, Credit.
From Preferred Bidder to Financial Close Iain Menzies The World Bank St. Petersburg - 24 May 2008.
CDFI Loan Policies and Procedures Portfolio Management Series Webinar Developed and delivered by.
Lightening Strikes Twice: California Faces a Real Risk of A Second Power Crisis Lake Tahoe Energy Conference July 30, 2004 CONFIDENTIAL This report is.
Economics and Financing of Geothermal Projects Presented by R. Gordon Bloomquist, Ph.D. Washington State University Extension Energy Program (Retired)
Assisting XYZ Ltd. for valuation of intangible assets relating to its acquisition of Infologistics India Pvt. Ltd. Purchase Price Allocation Report August.
Merchant Plant Funding Assistance Product Potential Roles for Bank Participation February 2000.
Grace Hu Chief Economist District of Columbia Public Service Commission Thimpu, Bhutan October 7, 2002 Least Cost Plan & Electric Restructuring.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.