Economic Analyses of FPL’s New Nuclear Projects: An Overview Dr. Steven Sim Senior Manager, Resource Assessment & Planning Florida Power & Light Company.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FPSC Ten Year Plan Workshop Nuclear Panel Steven Scroggs Senior Director, Project Development Florida Power & Light Company August 15, 2007.
Advertisements

1 Conservation Program Cost-Effectiveness Tests Presentation to the: Florida Public Service Commission Workshop on Energy Efficiency Initiatives November.
Will CO2 Change What We Do?
Michael Carleton Paul Gosselink. Basic Positions of TxSWANA and Denton & Garland Strongly encourage PUC to adopt rules that will encourage the development.
Reliability Risks and Lessons Learned In The Wake Of The Polar Vortex OPSI Annual Meeting October 14, 2014.
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
Toward a Sustainable Future Name of Conference, Event, or Audience Date Presenter’s Name | ©2011 Synapse Energy Economics Inc. All.
1.  Purpose  To present Staff’s Preliminary Findings on the 2012 Integrated Resource Plans of:  APS – Arizona Public Service Company  TEP – Tucson.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Effects of Alternative Scenarios on Sixth Power Plan Northwest Power and Conservation Council Whitefish, MT June.
Connecticut’s Energy Future Removing Barriers to Promote Energy Sustainability: Public Policy and Financing December 2, 2004 Legislative Office Building.
Plug-In Electric Vehicles… What has to happen on the other side of the outlet? MARC Conf. Session 4 – Electric Cars: Can we charge our way to a carbon-free.
Neeharika Naik-Dhungel, EPA CHP Partnership Program Central Pennsylvania AEE Meeting January 26, 2012 Combined Heat and Power: CHP Partnership and the.
Katrina Pielli U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CHP Partnership
Financing new electricity supply in the UK market with carbon abatement constraints Keith Palmer 08 March 2006 AFG.
New York State Energy Resources Marcus Doyle David Marye Mike Marziani Jimmy Perez.
What do all those numbers mean on my electric bill? Managing utility costs.
1 Enhancing the Role of Renewable Energy in California Robert A. Laurie Commissioner California Energy Commission Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting.
Siemens sans siemens sans bold siemens sans italic siemens sans italic bold siemens sans black siemens black italic Siemens Building Technologies.
New Nuclear Power Plants Need and Status ASQ-EED 31 st Energy & Environmental Division Conference September 12, 2004 Adrian Heymer, NEI
Resource Planning Georgia Power’s Diverse Plan to Meet Georgia’s Energy Needs AWMA Fall 2010 Conference October 7, 2010 Jeff Burleson Director of Resource.
Incorporating an Affordability Rate Cap Into a Florida RPS Florida Public Service Commission July 26, 2007 Kim Owens, P.E. JEA Clean Power Coordinator.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council 6 th Plan Conservation Resource Supply Curve Workshop on Data & Assumption Overview of Council Resource Analysis.
BMT Designers & Planners 1 Wind Farm Technology: Is it the Answer? National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) 30 th Environmental and Energy Symposium.
KEC Electricity Committee, March 12, 2008 Benefit Cost Study of the Governor’s 2015 Wind Challenge: 1,000 MW by 2015 Bob Glass KCC Utilities Division,
LONG TERM ELECTRICAL SUPPLY PLAN STAFF RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN NOVEMBER 2004 Presentation to the Gainesville City Commission.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Slide 1 Direct Use of Natural Gas Economic Fuel Choices from the Regional Power System and Consumer’s Perspective.
Highlights of AESC 2011 Report Vermont Presentation August 22, | ©2011 Synapse Energy Economics Inc. All rights reserved.
Jenell Katheiser Doug Murray Long Term Study Scenarios and Generation Expansion Update January 22, 2013.
Wind Energy Update Larry Flowers National Renewable Energy Laboratory November 30, 2007 Salt Lake City, UT.
Technologies of Climate Change Mitigation Climate Parliament Forum, May 26, 2011 Prof. Dr. Thomas Bruckner Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management.
Overview of Distributed Generation Applications June 16, 2003 Harrisburg, PA Joel Bluestein Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
Lisa Linowes 2010 Mid-America Regulatory Conference Consumer Forum June 6 - 9, 2010 Kansas City, Missouri Wind Energy: An Assessment.
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION: TECHNICAL STUDY RESULTS Peninsula Clean Energy September 24,2015.
EPA Cooling System Regulations Hall of States Briefing February 22, 2011.
Future Power Generation in Georgia Georgia Climate Change Summit May 6, 2008 Danny Herrin, Manager Climate and Environmental Strategies Southern Company.
THE LONG-TERM ENERGY SUPPLY AND DEMAND OUTLOOK IN TAIWAN ENERGY COMMISSION MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AUGUST 2001 MOEA -15-
Florida’s Electric Capacity and Fuel Needs Presentation by: James Dean Florida Public Service Commission to the: House Utilities and Telecommunications.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency eeactionplan The Role of Energy Efficiency in Utility Energy Planning Snuller Price Partner Energy.
September 21, 2005 ICF Consulting RGGI Electricity Sector Modeling Results Updated Reference, RGGI Package and Sensitivities.
California’s Proposed DR Cost-Effectiveness Framework January 30, 2008.
IFIEC Europe International Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers 1 Promotion of Renewable Energies in the EU Member States Consequences on the Price.
WFEC and Its Rural Electric Cooperative Members Solar Power October 16, 2015 Fall PR-MR & Marketing Meeting.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council A Look At The Council’s Conservation Planning Methodology and Assumptions A Look At The Council’s Conservation.
Progress Energy Issues Overview April 25, 2006 Don Cooke Sr. Environmental Coordinator.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Overview of Draft Sixth Power Plan Council Meeting Whitefish, MT June 9-11, 2009.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council The Role of Energy Efficiency in the Northwest Power and Conservation Plan Tom Eckman Manager, Conservation Resources.
Long Island’s Offshore Wind Farm David Tobias Project Evaluation.
Puerto Rico Electric Power
Southern California Edison The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station April 14, 2011.
OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, Session 6 Reliability Pricing Model: Are Further Changes Necessary? Reluctantly…yes But States should also be.
GETTING ENOUGH COAL: MORE THAN A THREE LEGGED STOOL DAY ONE KEYNOTE: NOVEMBER 2, 2006 COAL NEEDS POWER COMPETITION TO SUCCEED John E. Shelk.
1 California Energy Commission April 27, 2015 Valerie Winn Chief, State Agency Relations Contingency Planning and Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Demand Response
Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations – Preliminary Results Prepared for : WRAP, AP2 Forum Prepared.
Slide 1 Overview of Conservation in the Pacific Northwest Energy Efficiency Options in the Northwest Post-2011Meeting March 4, 2008.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection March 24, 2016 Presentation to the Energy & Technology Committee Informational Forum on Adequacy.
High Level Post Processing Cost Estimates MWG SSC Meeting September 26, 2011.
Energy and Environmental Policy Renewable Energy: Wind Presented by: Adam Smith Damien Hammond Veera Kondapi Jeff Gruppo.
Assessment of the Economic Impact of Greening Vehicular Transport in Barbados Winston Moore (PhD) and Stacia Howard Antilles Economics November 2015.
Clean Power Plan EW Tim Wilson Director of Energy Supply Services.
DEMAND FORCASTING. Introduction: Demand forecasting means expectation about the future course of the market demand for a product. Demand forecasting is.
© OECD/IEA Do we have the technology to secure energy supply and CO 2 neutrality? Insights from Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 Copenhagen,
Nuclear Energy in 2013: Status and Outlook Paul Genoa Senior Director, Policy Development Nuclear Energy Institute Florida Senate Committee on Communications,
Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) Presentation to: Florida Energy & Climate Commission Terry Deason July 22, 2009 Radey I Thomas I.
Diversification of Energy Power Plants in the North of Chile Matías Raby.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council The Role of Electric Energy Efficiency in Reducing PNW Carbon Emissions Tom Eckman Manager, Conservation Resources.
04/16/ Planning New Generation APPA Operations & Engineering Conference April 10, 2006 Jay Hudson, PE Manager, Environmental Management.
World Energy and Environmental Outlook to 2030
Key Findings and Resource Strategy
Division of Energy Resources
Presentation transcript:

Economic Analyses of FPL’s New Nuclear Projects: An Overview Dr. Steven Sim Senior Manager, Resource Assessment & Planning Florida Power & Light Company October 20, 2011

2 Background Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) currently has 4 nuclear- powered generating units; two at its Turkey Point site and two at its St. Lucie site These 4 nuclear units comprise about 2,900 MW of generating capacity and supply about 20% of FPL’s annual electricity output FPL is currently pursuing approximately 2,650 MW of additional, new nuclear generating capacity through two projects: - Extended Power Uprates (EPU) Project: Increase the capacity (450 MW) at FPL’s 4 existing nuclear units (projected to be completed in 2012 & 2013) - Turkey Point 6 & 7 Project: Add two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site (2,200 MW projected to completed in 2022 & 2023) The slides that follow provide an overview of the analyses that support pursuing these two nuclear projects for the benefit of FPL’s customers

3 Factors in Utility Resource Planning First, all cost-effective conservation and demand side management options are identified and accounted for Second, to meet the remaining projected electricity demand, generation alternatives are then considered Economic and non-economic analyses of the generation alternatives are based on projections of impacts for the FPL system as a whole over the life of the alternatives Factors accounted for in these analyses include, but are not limited to, the following: –Fixed costs (upfront capital, annual O&M, etc.) –Variable annual system costs (fuel, environmental compliance, etc.) –Capacity factors (“Base Load” vs. “Peaking”) –Firm capacity or intermittent, non-firm energy –Fuel Diversity FPL employs an Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process when planning for future energy needs. All system cost and other impacts must be accounted for when evaluating competing generation alternatives

4 Overview of the Economic Analyses for the Two Nuclear Projects FPL’s basic analytical approach accounts creates two long- range resource plans, one with the nuclear project and one with a competing generation alternative The projected operation of FPL’s system over many years is then evaluated assuming first one, then the other, resource plan is implemented Because the future costs of fuels (oil, natural gas, etc.) and compliance with environmental regulations is not known, the economic analyses address this fact by performing separate analyses for possible future scenarios that include at least the following: - 3 forecasts of future fuel costs (low, medium, and high) - 3 forecasts of future environmental compliance costs In this way, the economic viability of the nuclear projects can be evaluated over a very wide range of possible future conditions

5 I. The EPU Project FPL received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) to proceed with the EPU project in 2008 The EPU project is nearing completion. Work at 3 of the 4 nuclear units is projected to be completed in 2012 and work at the remaining unit is projected to be completed in early 2013 The total installed cost of the project is currently projected to be approximately $2.5 billion. Of that amount, approximately $0.7 billion, or $700 million, has already been spent These values, plus the projected fuel savings on the FPL system over the remaining lives of the 4 nuclear units, is graphically displayed on the following page The following slide presents a snapshot of two key factors in the economic analysis of the EPU project: construction cost vs system fuel savings

6 The EPU Project: Comparison of Actual Costs Spentt, Projected Costs Remaining to Complete, and Projected System Fuel Savings (Million $, Nominal, approximate)

7 I. The EPU Project The results of the most recent economic analyses for the EPU project, including the snapshot presented on the preceding page, are consistent with the results previously provided to the FPSC annually from 2007 through 2010 In each of these analyses, the EPU project was projected to be an economical addition for FPL’s customers And, in addition to providing economic benefits, the EPU project is projected to provide other benefits to FPL’s customers including: - significant reductions in FPL system use of fossil fuels - significant reductions in FPL system air emissions (SO2, NOX, CO2, etc.) From the start of the project in 2007 through the present, analyses of the EPU project have consistently projected it to be a cost-effective addition for FPL’s customers

8 II. The Turkey Point 6 & 7 Project FPL also received approval from the FPSC to proceed with the Turkey Point 6 & 7 (TP 6&7) project in 2008 There are two basic steps to the TP 6&7 project: - Obtain all necessary federal licenses and permits to construct and operate the new units, especially the Combined Operating License (COL) (currently projected by or after late 2013) - Construct the two new units (currently projected to be completed in 2022 for TP 6 and 2023 for TP 7) The cost to obtain the COL (plus other necessary licenses and permits) is currently projected to be approximately $215 million of which approximately $130 million has been spent The cost of building the two new nuclear units cannot yet be projected with a high level of certainty, but for purposes of this discussion, a total construction cost of approximately $18 billion is assumed The following 3 slides present a snapshot of key factors in the economic analysis of the TP 6&7 project: COL costs, construction cost, and system fuel savings

9 Projected Cost for Obtaining a COL for TP 6&7 (Million $, Nominal, approximate)

10 Projected Costs for Obtaining a COL & Building TP 6&7 (Million $, Nominal, approximate)

11 The TP 6&7 Project: Comparison of Projected Costs of COL, Building TP 6&7, and System Fuel Savings (Million $, Nominal, approximate)

12 II. The TP 6&7 Project As shown by the graph on the preceding pages, the costs currently being incurred for licenses and permits is very small relative to the potential fuel savings from TP 6&7 In addition, the projected fuel savings of $75 billion for the TP 6&7 project far exceeds the projected cost of building the two nuclear units FPL’s current total annual fuel bill is approximately $4 billion and this fuel bill accounts for roughly half of a customer’s monthly electric bill The projected fuel savings from TP 6&7 is equivalent to no fuel costs for FPL’s customers for more than 18 years at current fuel costs

13 II. The TP 6&7 Project The results of the most recent economic analyses for the TP 6&7 project, including the snapshot presented on the preceding pages, are consistent with the results previously provided to the FPSC annually from 2007 through 2010 In each of these analyses, the TP 6&7 project was projected to be an economical addition for FPL’s customers And, in addition to providing economic benefits, the TP 6&7 project – like the EPU project, only to a much greater extent - is projected to provide other benefits to FPL’s customers including: - significant reductions in FPL system use of fossil fuels - significant reductions in FPL system air emissions (SO2, NOX, CO2, etc.) From the start of the project in 2007 through the present, analyses of the TP 6&7 project have consistently projected it to be a cost-effective addition for FPL’s customers

14 Nuclear generation offers a unique combination of attributes that address several areas of concern As a generation alternative, nuclear has direct benefits: –Firm capacity –High availability & base load operation (90%) –Low and stable fuel costs –High energy density (MW/acre) to limit land requirements As a part of a portfolio, nuclear has system benefits –Fuel source diversity and cost stabilization –Fuel supply reliability and on-site reserves –Emission-free operation –Technology diversity From a policy perspective, nuclear offers –Energy security –Meaningful progress on greenhouse gas emissions Nuclear’s Unique Attributes Nuclear generation offers unique and beneficial features not provided by any other type of generation alternative

15 Back Up Information

16 I. The EPU Project The table below presents the complete results of the most recent (August 2011) analyses FPL provided to the FPSC regarding the projected total economic impacts of the EPU project on the entire FPL system:

17 II. The TP 6&7 Project The table below presents the complete results of the most recent (August 2011) analyses FPL provided to the FPSC regarding the projected total economic impacts of the TP 6&7 project on the entire FPL system in terms of breakeven costs: The current projected range of construction costs to which these breakeven costs are compared is $3,483/kw to $5,063/kw