Project 150 Evaluation Working Group
description
Transcript of Project 150 Evaluation Working Group
Project 150 Evaluation Working Group
Round 3 Proposal EvaluationSteering Committee Review
September 5, 2008
2
Evaluation Process Evaluation Committee
Steps & Minimum Requirements
Evaluation Metrics Project-based
Sensitivity of Results to Key Variables
Project Evaluation
Results Overview of Recommended Projects
Recommendations
Recommended
On the fence
Not recommended
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Presentation Overview
Proposal Summary
Statistics # Projects & MW by Technology
Strength of the field
CCEF Funds Requested
Ratepayer Cost Impacts
SW CT Benefits
Agreement on Proposal Recommendations to CCEF Board
Next Steps & Timing
3
Evaluation Process:Evaluation Committee
Affiliation Core Expertise
Dale Hedman Director Project
Development, CCEF
Project Development
Patrick O'Neill P.E. Project Mgr., CCEF Power Engineering
James Dunn Energy Technology
Consultants
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell
David Nickerson Mystic River Energy
Group LLC
Project Development /
Wholesale Power
Supply
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
4
Evaluation Process:Key Steps
Review and refine evaluation methods & Scoring Weights
Review proposals for Minimum Bid Eligibility Requirements
Review proposals as submitted
Face-to-face project interviews to clarify proposals & address questions
Written project responses to specific questions
Individual evaluators score each project on non-price evaluation criteria
Consultants calculate net ratepayer impact
Two day evaluator meeting to review net ratepayer impact analysis,
discuss projects, finalize scores, consider key sensitivities, and rank
projects
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
5
Proposals Not Meeting Minimum Bid Requirements
Versailles Renewable Energy Landfill-methane-by pipeline at CHP plant
Ineligible pricing option (as determined by DPUC), no alternative offered
Elemental Power “Quad” Fuel cell in CHP configuration
Site control not secured
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
6
Cost to Ratepayers
NPV Ratepayer
Impact (55)
Note: Higher score
means lower
net ratepayer
costs
Ratepayer Benefits
Increased access to RE w/ min. env. Impact (2)
CT econ. dev. Benefits (2)
Output & reliability at system peak (1.5)
Long term price suppression (1)
Innovative use of technology (1)
T&D reliability (1)
Project Diversity: tech., fuel source, location & size (0.5)
Timing (1)
Financial Viability
Sound financial expectations & assumptions (3.75)
Financing experience (2.25)
Financial strength of developer (3)
Realistic financing structure (1.5)
Capital Risk (2.25) Equity
participation (2.25)
Feasibility
Team experience (3) Permitting status (3) Public acceptance (2) Site issues (2) Reasonableness of
schedule (1) Design status (2) Technology risk (2) Interconnection
analysis (2) Quality of operating
plan (1) Quality of resource/
fuel plan (2)
55 10 15 20
Key:
Scoring metric determined by quantitative analysis of proposal
Evaluator subjective metric
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Evaluation Metrics
(Points out of 100)
7
Consideration ofPortfolio Characteristics
Limited variety of technologies among proposals meeting minimum threshold review
All natural gas fuel cells manufactured in CT
Why? Biomass potential largely tapped
Limited indigenous wind & hydro resources, none sufficiently advanced for this solicitation
Solar unable to beat the price cap
LFG-by-pipe project selected ineligible price option
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
8
Proposal Summary Statistics
45.1 MW Total
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
9
Proposal Summary Statistics:Strength of the Field
Reasonably competitive:
Proposals ~3x target MW before threshold review;
Final evaluation pool ~ 2x target MW
Not a diverse mix
All proposals = same fuel & base technology and manufacturer
Variety of stages of development
Many have strong financial partners and/or proponent equity
3 of final 7 projects requested additional CCEF funding
Scoring tightly clustered all scores between 67.3 – 71.0 of 100
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
10
Proposal Summary Statistics: CCEF $ Requested
•Binary distribution of funding requests• 4 requested no additional $
• 3 requests between. $1.5 – 3 million
•Total requested (7 proj.) = $7.75 million
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
11
Proposal Summary Statistics: Ratepayer Cost Impacts
Net NPV cost impact to ratepayers of payments to projects…
Evaluated on a consistent basis…
After taking credit for the market value to ratepayers of expected energy
generated, locational forward capacity and RECs provided… and CCEF $
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
12
Proposal Summary Statistics: SW CT Benefits
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
13
Project Evaluation:Overview of Recommended Projects
Number of
Projects
Total MW
Claimed
Capability
Avg. Ratepayer
Impact
(NPV ¢/kwh)
Recommended 4 24.06 2.53 ¢/kwh
On the Fence 1 3.24 2.58 ¢/kwh
Not
Recommended2 17.77 2.95 ¢/kwh
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
14
Project Evaluation:Summary of Recommended Projects
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
15
Pricing Options Selected
Option 6 – 50% of Wholesale Market Energy Cost Plus Project Cost of
Natural Gas As The Primary Fuel (Not Subject To Price
Cap).
4 Proposals
Option 6a – 50% of Wholesale Market Energy Cost Plus Project Cost of
Natural Gas As The Primary Fuel (Not Subject To Price
Cap), adjusted downward by proposer-defined price
modifier.
3 Proposals This is a new pricing option introduced by CCEF in Round 3
One response had variable downward adjustment tied to market REC prices
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
16
Discussion of Recommendations
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
17
Project
No. &
(Score) Developer Location Type
Seasonal
Adjusted
Claimed
Capability
(kW)
NPV
Ratepayer
Impact
(¢/kwh)
Pricing
Option
Selected
Additional
CCEF
Funds >
$50k
($ millions)
008
(71.0)Fuel Cell Energy Bloomfield
Fuel Cell +
ERG3,367 2.36 6 $0
005
(71.0)
Bridgeport Fuel
Cell Park, LLCBridgeport**
Fuel Cell +
ORC14,294 2.84 6a $1.5
009
(70.9)Fuel Cell Energy Trumbull**
Fuel Cell +
ERG3,200 2.47 6 $0
007
(70.2)Fuel Cell Energy Glastonbury
Fuel Cell +
ERG3,200 2.47 6 $0
* Secondary SW CT, ** Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Scoring Summary:Recommended
18
Project
No. &
(Score) Developer Location Type
Seasonal
Adjusted
Claimed
Capability
(kW)
NPV
Ratepayer
Impact
(¢/kwh)
Pricing
Option
Selected
Additional
CCEF
Funds >
$50k ($
millions)
001
(68.3)
EPG Fuel Cell,
LLC (Cube)Danbury*
Fuel Cell +
Brayton
cycle
turbine
3,238 2.58 6a $2.95
* Secondary SW CT, ** Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Pro = provides technology & developer diversity
Con = request of $3m for a 3MW project
Scoring Summary:On the Fence
19
Project
No. &
(Score) Developer Location Type
Seasonal
Adjusted
Claimed
Capability
(kW)
NPV
Ratepayer
Impact
(¢/kwh)
Pricing
Option
Selected
Additional
CCEF
Funds >
$50k ($
millions)
006
(67.9)TEN Companies Hartford
Fuel Cell +
Heat
Recovery
2,710 2.99 6 $0
002
(67.3)
EPG Fuel Cell,
LLC (Triangle)Danbury*
Fuel Cell +
ORC15,057 2.91 6a $2.95
* Secondary SW CT, ** Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Scoring Summary:Not Recommended
EWG Rank Project Name (#)
Levelized Contract Price
(¢/kWh)1 Bloomfield (008) 18.792 Bridgeport (005) 17.633 Trumbull (009) 19.654 Glastonbury (007) 18.555 Cube (001) 17.806 Hartford (006) 19.857 Triangle (002) 19.66
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes20
Levelized Contract Prices
Alternative Proposalswithout ITC/PTC extension
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes21
Status if no ITC/PTC
extension
# of Proposals # of MW
Withdrawn 4 (#s 001,002,005,006)
35.3(14.294 of recommended)
No change 3(#s 007,008,009)
9.8
22
Evaluated the impact of: Future electricity/natural gas price trajectories
(base, low, high) Future REC price trajectories
(base, low, high)
Some reordering within short list, and not-recommended group, but no shifts
between groups
For perspective, also calculated… Ranking w/o CCEF funding $
‘Cube’ Project would jump from 5th to top-ranked Approximate utility ranking on ratepayer cost only w/o CCEF funding $
‘Cube’ Project would jump from 5th to top-ranked, BFCP straddled the cutoff
Sensitivity of Resultsto Key Variables
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
The recommended results are resilient!
Base Case Results
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes23
Sensitivity Analysis: High Electricity & Natural Gas Prices
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes24
Sensitivity Analysis: Low Electricity & Natural Gas Prices
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes25
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes26
Sensitivity Analysis: High REC Prices
Sensitivity Analysis: Low REC Prices
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes27
Sensitivity Analysis: CCEF Funding Not Included
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes28
Sensitivity Analysis: Rate Impact Ranking without CCEF $
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes29
Approximates Expected Utility Rankings
Project Proposal Summaries
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
31
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Bloomfield Location:
Bloomfield, CT (outside SWCT) At CNG pressure letdown/gate station
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo
expander “Energy Recovery Generator”
Turbo expander captures energy lost in a gate station pressure reducing valve
Eliminates need for gas-fired heaters 3.367 MW total (~850 kW from ERG)
Team Experience: Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer Enbridge Inc. – A major fuel supplier &
N. America energy player, as developer
Energy East/CNG – Fuel supplier, holds title to the land and access to the pressure let down station
BOC Cryostar, Inc. – world leader in radial inflow turbine technology.
Project Status: Interconnection – prelim. CL&P discussions Permit applications – pending Site control established – host on the team Design – Conceptual engineering completed
Requested additional CCEF $: 0
Contract Term: 20 years NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF $:
Total: $12.0 million Per MWh: $23.57
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 008 Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
32
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Bloomfield Strengths
Innovative use of technologies
Strong project team
Limited technology risk
Highly efficient use of thermal output
Local support for project
No additional CCEF $ requested
Least expensive fuel cell project
Weaknesses
Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
Limited development progress
Fuel Cell with turbo expanderProject 008
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 8: DFC ERG - Bloomfield
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
33 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park Location:
Bridgeport, CT (Primary SWCT)
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Organic Rankine bottoming cycle 14.3 MW total (~ 930 kW from ORC)
Team Experience: Fuel Cell Energy – Manufacturer and
co-developer PurePower, LLC – A firm specializing
in developing large scale fuel cell projects in CT
PinPoint Power, LLC – Develops, owns and manages power generating and DSM equipment in the Northeast
Project Status: Interconnection – UI feasibility study
complete; SIS & FS outstanding Permit applications – Approved by Siting
Council. Preliminary permitting review completed, no major issues identified
Site control estab. - Signed lease option Design – Preliminary design completed
Requested additional CCEF $: $1.5M
Contract Term: 15 years
Rate Impact: Total: $49.6 million Per MWh: $28.35
RECs: 100% RECs retained REC value > $10 reduces price
Project 005 Fuel Cell w/ ORC
34 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Bridgeport Fuel Cell ParkStrengths Redevelopment of a brownfield site
Advanced permitting and development status
Strong city support
Strong project team
Improved recovery of waste heat in ORC
Creative price modifier: returns REC value in
excess of $10/MWh to ratepayers
Weaknesses Limited operating experience with 2.8MW units
Of recommended projects, most expensive
ratepayer impact per MWh
Fuel Cell w/ ORCProject 005
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 5: Fuel Cell Energy - BFCP
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
35
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Trumbull Location:
Trumbull, CT (primary SWCT) At SCG pressure letdown/gate station
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo
expander “Energy Recovery Generator” Turbo expander captures energy lost in a
gate station pressure reducing valve Eliminates need to run gas-fired heaters 3.200 MW total (~600 kW from ERG)
Team Experience: Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer Enbridge Inc. – A major fuel supplier and
N. America energy player, as the developer
Energy East/CNG – Fuel supplier, holds title to land &access to pressure let down
BOC Cryostar, Inc. – world leader in radial inflow turbine technology.
Project Status: Interconnection – prelim. UI discussions Permit applications – pending Site control established – host on the team Design – Conceptual engineering
completed
Requested additional CCEF $: 0
Contract Term: 20 years NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF $:
Total: $11.9 million Per MWh: $24.66
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 009 Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
36
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Trumbull Strengths
Innovative use of technologies
Strong project team
Limited technology risk
Highly efficient use of thermal output
Local support for project
No additional CCEF $ requested
Weaknesses
Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
Limited development progress
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 009
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 9: DFC ERG - Trumbull
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
37
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Glastonbury Location:
Glastonbury, CT (outside SWCT) At CNG pressure letdown/gate station
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo
expander “Energy Recovery Generator” Turbo expander captures energy otherwise
lost in a gate station pressure reducing valve
Eliminates need to run gas-fired heaters 3.200 MW total (~600 kW from ERG)
Team Experience: Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer Enbridge Inc. – A major fuel supplier and N.
America energy player serv. as developer Energy East/CNG – Fuel supplier, holds
title to land &access to pressure let down station
BOC Cryostar, Inc. – world leader in radial inflow turbine technology.
Project Status: Interconnection – prelim. CL&P discussions Permit applications – pending Site control established – host on the team Design – Conceptual engineering completed
Requested additional CCEF $: 0
Contract Term: 20 years
NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF $: Total: $12.1 million Per MWh: $24.73
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 007 Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
38
Fuel Cell Energy – DFC-ERG Glastonbury Strengths
Innovative use of technologies
Strong project team
Limited technology risk
Highly efficient use of thermal output
Local support for project
No additional CCEF $ requested
Weaknesses
Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
Limited development progress
Fuel Cell with turbo expanderProject 007
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 7: DFC ERG - Glastonbury
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
39 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Elemental Power – ‘Cube’ Project Location:
Danbury, CT (Secondary SWCT)
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Waste heat drives an un-fired
combustion turbine – generator in a Brayton cycle
3.2 MW total (~ 500 kW from turbine)
Team Experience: EPG Fuel Cell – Subsidiary of
Elemental Power Group, a company formed to develop own and operate clean renewable energy projects
Catamount Energy - financier Fuel Cell Energy – Manufacturer
Project Status: Interconnection – Application submitted to
CL&P Permit applications – prepared for filing Site control established – affiliate has lease Design – conceptual design complete
Requested additional CCEF $: $3 M
Contract Term: 20 years
Rate Impact: Total: $13.5 million Per MWh: $25.78
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 001 Fuel Cell with Unfired Combustion Turbine
40 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Elemental Power – ‘Cube’ ProjectStrengths Efficient configuration: low heat rate
Local zoning changes already made to
accommodate projects – i.e. strong
town support
Strong development team
Innovative combination of existing
technologies
‘Load reducer’ treatment gives more
immediate FCM value
Weaknesses
Limited operating experience with 2.8MW units Technology is scale-up of a pilot
Highest $ request from CCEF, by far
Fuel Cell with Unfired Combustion Turbine
Project 001
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 1: EPG Fuell Cell - Cube
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
41
Ten Companies Inc. – Hartford Fuel Cell Location:
Hartford, CT (outside SWCT)
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell CHP with heat recovery for district steam 2.700 MW total
Team Experience: Energy East (utility owner of both gas
supplier and steam company)
Project Status: Interconnection – prelim. CL&P discussion Permit applications – scoped Site control established – own site Design – Conceptual engineering completed
Requested additional CCEF $: 0
Contract Term: 15 years NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF $:
Total: $9.8 million Per MWh: $29.88
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 006 Fuel Cell CHP
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
42
Ten Companies Inc. – Hartford Fuel Cell Strengths Self-financing
Ease of integration with site uses (other generation, steam plants)
Limited technology risk
CHP = Efficient use of thermal output
No additional CCEF $ requested
Weaknesses Limited operating experience with
2.8MW units
Limited development progress
Highest ratepayer impact metric
Fuel Cell CHPProject 006
Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 6: TEN Companies Inc. - Hartford FC
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
43 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Elemental Power – Triangle Project Location:
Danbury, CT (Secondary SWCT)
Description: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Organic Rankine bottoming cycle 15.1 total MW (~ 950 kWh from ORC)
Team Experience: EPG Fuel Cell – Subsidiary of Elemental
Power Group, a company formed to develop own and operate clean renewable energy projects
Catamount Energy - financier Fuel Cell Energy – Manufacturer
Project Status: Interconnection – Application submitted to
ISO-NE, directed to submit a distn . level interconnect, CL&P feasibility study in process
Permit applications – Near completed Site control established – under lease Design – conceptual design complete
Requested additional CCEF $: 3M Contract Term: 15 years Rate Impact:
Total: $53.4 million Per MWh: $29.14
Other: 50% RECs retained
Project 002 Fuel Cell with ORC
44 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes
Elemental Power – Triangle ProjectStrengths Straightforward interconnection
Local zoning changes already made to
accommodate projects – i.e. strong
town support
Strong development team
Using Organic Rankine Cycle to
maximize efficiency (replicable
technology improvement)
Weaknesses Limited operating experience with 2.8
MW units Large CCEF $ request
High ratepayer impact metric
Fuel Cell with ORCProject 002
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Ratepayer Cost
Benefits to CT
Financial Viability
Feasibility
Project 2: EPG Fuel Cell - Triangle
Final Score
Total Potential
Average Cat. Score
Process & Timing
Next Steps Select proposals to recommend to the CCEF Board
CCEF Board Meeting Monday, Sept. 15, 2008
Recommendations submitted to DPUC and Utilities Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008
Written testimony in support of CCEF recommendations Scheduled October 6, 2008
Hearings scheduled Oct. 22-24, 2008
Draft decision scheduled Dec. 16, 2008
Final decision scheduled Jan. 7, 2009
45 Internal Working Document – For Discussion Purposes