HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-16 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ATTENTION:
DATE
CITY MANAGER
FINANCE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER. 16, 2001
DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
CMR:389:01
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1) THE PRIMARY
OBJECTIVES FOR LONG-TERM ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO
DEVELOPMENT AND 2) THE PURCHASE OF A 25 MW
POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS
STARTING IN YEAR 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend that the City Council
approve 1) the primary objectives which will guide the long-term electric portfolio
deve!opment and 2) the purchase of a 25 MW power supply contract for up to five
years in the period 2005-2010.
DISCUSSION:
The term of the City’s current contract with the Western Area Power Administration
(Western) ends on December 31, 2004. In October 2000 Council approved the 20-
year Western Base Resource Contract (CMR:378:00) which will replace the existing
Western contract. The new contract is expected to provide considerably less energy
to the City than the existing contract and hence will result in a large electric supply
deficit starting in 2005. The projected energy shortfall in the year 2005 and beyond
is expected to be approximately 500 million kilowatt-hours per year or 45% of the
City’s electricity energy needs during an average hydrologic year.
Primary Obiectives in Developing Electric Supply Portfolio Plan
Before proceeding with the development of a long-term electric supply portfolio
plan to fill this energy deficit, it is important to define the objectives that will guide
CMR: 389:01 1 of 4
staff in the development and management of electric supply portfolio. Staff and the
Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) propose the following set of primary
objectives.
¯Ensure low and stable electric supply rates for customers.
¯Provide superior financial performance to customers and the City by
maintaining a supply portfolio cost advantage compared to market cost and a .
retail supply rate advantage compared to PG&E.
¯Enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing
opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation.
¯Balance environmental, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when
considering renewable resource and energy efficiency investments.
Purchase of a 25 MW Fixed Price Power Supply Contract
Market prices in recent months have declined substantially. The prevailing market
prices are thought to be unsustainably low by most market participants and have
prompted some generators to announce the postponement of their plans to build
generation in California.
Though the energy shortfall is not expected to materialize until January 2005,
energy portfolio risk management principles emphasize that the timing of actual
energy procurement transactions be made in a staggered fashion, withdifferent
terms and duration, with different counterparties, and with fuel and source
diversification.
Based on the energy portfolio risk management principles outlined, and due to the
dramatic decline of electric prices in recent months, staff recommends the purchase
of energy with the following characteristics:
Characteristics of Potential Forward Electricity Purchase Contract
[]25 MW for up to six months between September and April
n A term of up to five years starting in year 2005
c~Energy to be delivered at NP- 15, round-the-clock
[]The purchase to be a fixed price contract with an average price not to exceed
$45/MWh
[] The energy is expected to satisfy 10-20% of the projected annual energy short-
fall during an average hydro year
[]The purchase may be made in two blocks with counterparties approved by the
Utilities Department’s Risk Oversight Committee
CMR: 389:01 2 of 4
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
Since February 2001, the UAC has reviewed analysis pertaining to the option
available to the City to fill the energy deficit in year 2_Q05 and beyond.
At the September 25, 2001 meeting, the UAC unanimously approved staff’s
recommendation to purchase energy to fill part of this energy deficit. The UAC
went beyond the staff’s recommended purchase quantifies of three months of
purchases of up to three years (nine consumption months) and recommended staff
be provided additional authority to make purchases for six months (September
through February) and for up to five years (thirty consumption months). The UAC
motion to provide staff with this increased authority passed with a unanimous vote.
In recommending this increased purchase authority, UAC members stated that they
too believe that electricity prices are low and reasonable at present and staff should
not be "gun shy" to commit now to purchase a larger percentage of our future
energy requirements. The UAC’s recommendation for increased authority is
accepted and endorsed by staff. Based on market conditions and further analysis to
fine-tune the term of purchase, the final decision regarding the purchase term will be
determined by staff in the coming weeks.
In discussing the primary objectives in developing the electric supply portfolio plan,
the UAC proposed modifications to the initial set of objectives proposed by staff.
These comments were fully incorporated by staff, and the final version of the
proposed objectives was unanimously approved by the UAC at the October 3,2001
meeting. In approving the objectives, the UAC felt that "low and stable rates for
customers" should be the overarching objective in planning the portfolio.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The total cost of the contracts could be up to $25 million over 5 years (25 MW *
$45/MWh * 720 MWh/MW-month* 6 months/year * 5 years). This cost of
approximately $5 million/annum is estimated to be approximately 7% of the
forecasted total electric supply cost during this same period.
POLIC~ IMPLICATIONS
These recommendations meet the objectives outlined in the Utilities Strategic Plan.
Specifically, the recommendations meet the goal of Strategy No. 2, "Preserve a
supply cost advantage compared to the market price."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The approval of the primary objectives and the purchase of the electricity contracts
do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act;
therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
CMR: 389:01 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
A. UAC Reports dated September 25, 2001
B. UAC Minutes dated September 25, 2001
C. UAC Report: Request for Approval of Primary Objectives
Electric Portfolio Development dated October 3,2001
D. UAC Minutes dated October 3, 2001
For Long-Term
PREPARED BY:Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner
Girish Balachandran, Interim Assistant Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY MANAGER
Director of L~ilities
City Manager
CMR: 389:01 4 of 4
TO:UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM:UTIITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRIMARY OBJECTIVES FOR
LONG-TERM ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT AND A 3-
MONTH, 25 MW POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR THE
PERIOD 2005-2007
REQUEST
This report requests the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommends that the City
Council approves: 1) the 5 Primary Objectives which will gttide the electric portfolio-
development, and 2) a 3 month, 25 MW electricity purchase contract for.the period 2005-
2007.
BKCKGROUND
The term of the City’s current contract with the Western Area Power Administration
(Western) ends on December 31, 2004. In October 2000 Council approved the 20-year
Western Base Resource Contract (CMR:378:00) which will replace the existing Western
contract. The new contract is expected to provide considerably less energy to the City.
than the existing contract and hence will result in a large electric supply deficit starting in
2005. Based on the analysis provided by staff, UAC approved a set of guidelines to fill
this energy deficit in February 2001. A presentation of electric portfolio development and
implementation process was made to the UAC on September 5, 2001. Both the February
2001 report .and the September 5 presentation are attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
Due to the changed Western contract, the projected energy shortfall in the year 2005 and
beyond is-expected to be - 500 million kilowatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) or 43% of the
City’ s electricity energy needs during an average hydrologic year. This deficit is highly
variable depending on hydro conditions with the energy deficit as high as 68% in a very
dry hydro year and as low as 17% in a very wet year. This annual production variability is
illustrated in Figure 1.
Page 1 of 5
i=ig 1 Variability of Existing Generation. Portfolio After December 2004
140,000
120,000’
O ~
~E t00,000"
Palo Alto Load
~ 80,000
uJ 6o,ooo
20,000
Before proceeding with the development of long-term electric s.upply portfolio
recomn~endations, it is important to define the objectives that will guide the electric
supply portfolio development. StaffpropOses the following set of 5 primary objectives.
~ary Objectives in Developing Electric Supply Portfolio Plan
l. Maintain Palo Alto’s supply portfolio cost advantage compared to market cost
2. Ensure stable electric supply rates for customers
3. Maintain Palo Alto’s retail supply rate advantage compared to PG&E
4. Develop a renewable resource portfolio & implement energy efficiency and
conservation programs to improve the quality of the environment in accordance, with
the Utilities Strategic Plan
5. Enhance supply reliability by developing local generation to meet customer needs
Though these Objectives are broad in scope and may be in conflict, a set ofpre-defmed
and City-wide accepted Electric Portfolio Objectives will provide staffwith a degree of
focus and establishes an overarching set of boundary conditions to develop a portfolio
plan.
Page 2 of 5
£igure 2 illustrates the rapid decline of market prices in recent months, with year 2005
l~rices declining l~om a high of over $50/MWh in May 2001 to a low of $38/MWh in
mid-September 2001. The prevailing market prices are thought to be unsustainably low
by market participants, and have.prompted some generators .to announce the
l~ostponement of their plans to build generation in California. It is thought that electric
prices must increase or natural gas prices must decrease to justify building new
generation.
Fig 2: Illustration of the Decline of Annual Forward On.Peak Market Prices in N.Califomia
150.
140.
130 -
120 -
110 -
.100
90~
80 I
70,
60’
50’
40.
30-
911/00
Year 2003
Year2004-. --
Year 2005
1011/00 1111/00 12/1/00 1/~/01 2/1/01 3/1/01 411/01 5/1/0’~ 611/01 711/01 811/01 911/01
Date of Forward Market Pdce
Though the energy shortfall is not expected to materialize until January 2005, portfolio
risk management principles emphas~e that the timing of actual energy procurement
transactions be made in a staggered fashion, with different terms and duration, with
different counterparties, and with fuel and source diversification.
Based on the risk management principles outlined, and due to the dramatic decline of
electric prices in recent months, staff recommends the purchase of a small increment of
electric supply, by the end of the year. Figure 1 illustrates that in all hydro conditions, the
greatest deficit exists during the three fall months. For this reason, staff recommends
making a relatively small purchase to fill part of that deficit at this fi_rne.
Characteristics of Recommended Forward Electrici _ty Purchase Contract
ca 25 MW for the months of October, November, and December. This is a standard
"quarter four" product. Depending on market conditions and risk premiums
associated withtransacting a ’non-standard’ product, the purchase months may be
modified to September, October and November instead, at staff discretion.
Page 3 of 5
Preliminary Analysis of ElectricSupply Portfolio’s post-2004 Deficit
£ E~ecutive Summm-y
"!he restmcmr2n." g of Palo Alto’s contract with the .Western Area Power Administration (Western)
results in a significant resource deficit beginning in 2005. These shortagesare significant:- from
about 25% of forecasted load in spring ,naontl~. to over 75% in the fall. In addition,.Palo Alt0’s
l~ng-term supply portfolio is heavily weighted with hydroelectric sources in the post-2005
VCestem Base Resource product and Palo Alto’s existing long-term resource, the Calaveras ~
hydroelectric project. "
To ~ the supply resource deficit, it is recommended to diversify the supply.portfolio by adding ¯
exposure to gas-fired generationand by s~g contracts for fixed,price power for terms-of.
varying lengths. Staffshould pursue opportunitiesin the market place and act as appropriate t~
hedge price risk and to
A~ a fast cut fo~ filling the post-2005 energy deficit, the following supply 0ptions.are.
recommended: ~
¯ 1. . Purchase gas-fired generation for 25-50 MW. This could be done ’md.~. pendently or.
jointly with other entities," such as other NCPA members.
2.Hedge the fuel costs of the gas-fired unit by fixing or capping the price Of gas..
¯ 3. ¯ Purchase eleetrieity forward for ten years for half of the deficit remainin." g after thegas -
plant OUtpUt (approximately 30 M’W average).
4~ Pureh. ase electricity forward for five years for half of the deficit remaining after, the gas
plant, output and the ten-year forward electric purchases (approximately.15 MW average).
5.Re.ly on short-term purchases or the spot market for the remainder of thedeficit
(apismximately 15 MW average).
Staff should pdrsue Council apprO.val of these concepts and attain the abil.ity to act on
op~rtum’ties as. they arise within the approved range of potential transactions. The’Director of
Utilities should be responsible to implement the supply acquisition program Within approved
gaid~hnes from Council.
2 Preliminary Analysis of Electdc Supply Portfolio’s posf-2004Deficit
Preliminary Analysis of Electric Supply Portfolio’s post-2004 Deficit
tlI. DESCRIPTION OF WESTERN BASE RESOURCE... ........: ........................., ............~..L3
PALO ALTO"S BASE R2ZOURCE A!!A3CATION.AND. COST .....................~ ..................~ ...............; ....3
rv. LOAD AND RF~OURCE BALANCE .............................................................~ ..................4
v. ~,q~S~S~mPROAC~ ...... :.~ ......... :.: ............. ~ ...... ~ .... :, ........ , ................... , ................... :...6
ID~FY OBmL~ FUNCnON ..: ..............., ............:I .....................:~ .............." ............................6
Sue~y O~nONS ............................~ .....................................; ........................................................6
UN(2I~TAIN’r]~ ~ ...........................: .......................: ................~ .........., .....................i. ....................7
MODEL OFT~PROBLI~2vI .................~ .........." ....: ...........:..~ ..............................................................7
VL &NALYSIS RF~ULTS ....
BEST ALTERNATVV~ ..................) ........................., ......................................: ......., ..........................8
COST ~0 SERV~ LOAD ...............................
UNCERTAIN "VARIAB I2,8 ........................ .......................: ........
~- TO-~.ASSET/I.I~xrY ......." .....................................................................~ ..........10
ALTIm.NATIV~ .............: ............. ..................................: ............................: ................................11
VII. PRELIM~AR¥ RECO~ATIONS .........~ ........: .........; ....., .......; ......................11
VIII.. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO BE DONE ...............: ..........................~ .......................12
1 .Preliminary Analysis of Electric. Supply Portfo].io’s post-2004 Deficit
I]; Introduction " .
¯ Palo Alto’s supply portfolio will undergo a major ehagge on Yanuary 1, 2005 when the current.
c0n~act with Western is replaced with a substantially .different product. The major change that
occurs is that .th~ product becomes nonfirm, is subject to hydroelectric conditions, mad the annual
energy expected in.an a~,erage hydro year is only about 40% of- the current contract entitlement:
"Thus, SRG undertook to evaluat~ alternatives to meetprojected loads given the emergence of a
significant supply deficit starting in 2005. This paper is the resul.t of a preliminary analysis of
that deficit.
I~ Description of Western Base Resource
Base Resource Description
Wostsm!s Base Resource is a very different product ~an the currsnt Western Commercial Firm
product. Currently, Westempr0vides a capacity and energy allocation with minimum and-
maximum hourly, monthly, and ye~.ly entitlements. Beginning in 2005, l#alo Alto must commit
to paya 11.624 percentage of We,stem’s costs in. exchange for the same percentage of the output
from the Base Resource. Therefore, the Base Resource is essentially a slice of the available
hydroelectric resource, As such, it is a non.firm product and is subject to uncertain water supply
conditions.
The B a~e Resource is the resource "available after meeting the requirements of Project Use
[water pumps for the Central Valley Project] and F’~t Preference customers [customers from th~
"counties of origin", where the C-V’P Trinityand New Melones dams are. located] and any
adjustments for maintenance, reserves, transformation losses and certain ancillary services". The
gezeration designated.as the Base R~ource consists of: 1) CVP generation, which provides the.
majoxi~y of the energy produced; 2) a purchase power contract for 50 megawatts (MW) of peak
load hour, market-priced energy that terminates in 2014; and 3).generation from the Washoe ¯
projec~ which is a small project located in n0rthea~t California producing, an average annual
generalion of 10 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
The estimated average annual generation of the CVP is 2,900 GWh after Project Use obligations
are metl CVP generation is highly dependent on water supply conditions. During. a dry year,
CVP generation is expected to pro&~ee 1,570 GWh/year. A wet ye~ is expected-to produce
5~200 G-Wh/year. CVP generation is also dependent on environmental constraints and water
delivery obligations to CVP water customers.
Palo Alto"s Base Resource Ailoeation and Cost
Since Palo Alto’s Base Resource allocation is about 11.6percent, the energy available should be
approximately 362 .GWh/year in an average year. Annual energyavailable to Palo Alto in a dry
a.ud wet year is expected, tO be 211 GWh and 635 GWh, respectively. Tl~s compares to Palo
Alt0’senergy entitlement of 1100 OWh/year in the existing contract, and Palo Alto’sfiscal year
i999-00 load of approximately 1200 OWh.
Westem’s Base Resourcewill be a cost-based resource and is expeeted..to cost about $50
mi!.lion/year. This means that Palo Alto’s 11.6percent obligation will be about $6 million/year
regardless of how much of the Ba~e Resource is available and .~filized by Palo.Alto. Thus~ in an
¯Pre~ar~ Analysis of Electric Supply Portfolio’s post-2004 DefiCit
average hydrologic year, the cost of Base Resource energy is expected ~o be about $17 per -
ruega~att-hour (MWh). In adry year, the cost of Ba~e P-:~urce energy could be $28/MWh.
Extremely dry.years could increase c.osts even more. A year would yield mo~ergy, at an-
~sfimat~l cost of only $i0/MWh. These costs compare ~-~ the estimated market value of energy
for the period 2004-24 of approximat.ely $50/MWh. -Thus, the Base Resource energy is expecW.A
to cost only one-third of the cost of energy from the open market. (Pot comparisorl purposes, the
cost of firm energy under Palo Alto’s e~sting Contract with Western is $18/lvIWh in fiscal year
1999-00 and $30/MWh in fiscal year 2000-01.)
IV. Lo, ad and resource balance "¯ Palo Alto s resource deficit (dfffereng-e in contracted supply resources, and forecasted load) afar
2004 is significant. Contracted resource consist of the Wes~m Bass Resource contract, Palo
Alto’s shhm in the Calaveras hydroelectric project, and the seasonal:.exdhange contract with
Seattle City Light. Since the majority of the contracted resources a~ hydro-based, the portfolio
i~ extremely sensitive to hydrological conditions.. The table and chart below shows the monthly
load and resource balance for 2005 for.an average hydro year.
Load and ResourceB~ce (MWh/m_onth) _
(ave~ hydro year) "
120,000 -
I00,000
¯. 60,000
40,000
20,000
Feb Mar Apt May Jan Ju~ ....Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Preliminary Aiialysis of El~ttic Supply l:’6rffo~o’ s pos~-2004"Deficit "
Lfth¢ ~rgy is broken into on- and off-peak pCrio .ds, the energy d~ficit is as shown inthe chart
b~low: "
6o,~o
Post-2004 Energy Deficit~
(average hydro yeaO
50,000
20,000
0
Jan Feb .Mar Apr " May. "~un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
This chart ~hows thatthe needin an average year ranges from about 201000 to 35;000 .
MWh/month for bff-peak and from 7,500 to57,500 M’Wh/month on-peak in an average year.
The Variability bf the size.of.the deficit in. dry and we( years is shown in the following chart:
Post-2004 Energy Deficit
120,000
100,000
80,000
M eo,ooo
W
h/,~o,ooo
~hnaoiooo
,20,000
Jan Feb ". M~~7 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
5 .Preliminary Analysis. of Electric Supply P0rffolio’s post-2004 Deficit
Consistent with the extent of.the hydroelectric sources in the portfolio, the deficits are much less
in wet ye~, specially in the spring months. In the f~. months, when the hydro resources have
less available, the deficits are large in all hydro year D,?es.
¥, Analysis approach ’ " ,
SRG conducted an analysis of ~he, post-2004 elec~c portfolio. The De~ision Analysis approach
used to evaluate the problem consisted of three steps:
1. Set up the problem
a. Develop candidate objective function(s)
b. Identify uncer~uties Or consl:mct a range of furore scenarios to test alternatives
c. Develop a range of supLaI, y alternatives
2.Mod~l the problem ...a. D.evelop a model to calculate the objective function(s)
b. Model must allow characterization of each supply al~ni:ative
c. M~del must ~llow.charac~fization of each scenario or uncerta~ty
3.Condu~t the. analysis
a. Show objective function results for eac~h alternative for eac.h scenario, or’uncertainty
b. ~D.isp.lay results so that decision-ma~rs are aware ofanybalancip., g of obj~ztives
study Goals
The fi~st step was to set up the probler~ and define the goals of.the analysis. The foII6wing goals’
were identified: "1) keep Pale Alto’s costs below.market (assuming Westera is Cost-based); 2)
rate stability; 3) cost stability; 4)dive~ity of sources (e.g. gas fueled; contracts for supply w~th
terms of 20 y~ars: 15 years, 10 years, 5 years; spot pm-c. hases; own; lease); 5)increased
reliability in Pale Alto.and/or in Bay Area; and 6) that a significant fraction of.supply needs am
determined prior to 2005.
.Identh~ Objective.Function ~
.The analysis must idenfifyan "objective function", or bottom line.to compare alternatives. Many
candidate objective functions were considered including: 1) items directly relyted to cost (!ow
expected cost, the distribution of costs, stability of costs, etc.); and 2) items directly related to
difference between cost and market value (e,g. likelihood that rotes are below.market). The two
sglecte¢l objective functions were the cost to serve load and the mark-to-market value of the
porffoho.
_Supplv Options
A range of supply options was cloy.eloped and included options directly related to: 1) purchasing
method (e.g, purchase supplies forward, purchase elec~city at prices based on a fixed heat rate.
and gas price index, purchase supplies at indexed (gas or elec~c) prices, and put Off hydro risk
to others via an "integration" contract); 2) generation source (e.g. do nothing - relyon market for
all additional new requirements, purchase output from a thermal plant, build 16cal generation -
generation, cogenerafion, dis~buted-generation, and build remot~ generation, build green
generation - wind. geothermal, PV, landfill gas); B) retail strategies (e.g. sign customers to 10ng-
term contracts aud sell customers shares of supply purchases); and 4) ownership (e.g. sen own,
joint action, or lease). --- :..
6 "Preliminary Analysis of Electric SupplpPortfolio’s posf:2004D~ficit
Tae .supply options evaluated included: - .
1, Short-term contracts that rely on market for all additional newrequirements or
commitments of one year or less
2.- Long:term contract with supplier forfixed price.
3.Long-term contract With supplier-for capped price (call optign)
4.Enter into a long-term "integration" contract with fixed price block
Enter intoa long-term "integration" contract with floating price block .
Own rsmot~ long-term.thermal generation and buy gas ~ fixed price
Own remote long-term themml generation and buy gas at floating pride
Own local gensration connected to PA’s system
Uncertainties .. ¯
In orderto rest options, a range Of future s~narios must be iddntified. Future scenarios consist
of possible futures identified by features that are uncontrollable. (e.g. mar~. t prices). The major
uncertainties identified included gas and electric market prices, Western future costs, and
hydrologic production (from CVP and Calaveras). Given these uncertainties, future scenarios to
use in the analysis included the following: .
1. Bass (nominal ease)
2. Low (gas and electricity) marl~t costs
3. High (gas and electricity) market costs
4. Low CVP production, high market prices .
-5./~ligh ~production, low market prices
6. High WeStern.costs
Model of the Problem
A spreadsheet model was built which ealeulh .tr2lthe objecti~;,e functions for daeh supp.ly Option.
2"he objectiv.e f-nnction also depended Upon the values of the uncertain’ variables. Decision
analysis software, DPL (’Decision Programming Language developed by Applied Decision
Analysis, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pricewaterhous.eCoopers LLP), was used to evaluate the
options undsr uncertainty..
Supply alternatives, or combinations of supply options., were evaluatsd as well as each option
separately. For this analysis, 25 MW chunks of each option were used to create supply
altemaiives. Any needs.above those satisfied by the.options would be met with market priced
electricity on the spot market.
7 "Preliminary Analysidof Electric Suppl~ P0rrfo!io’sp0st-2004 Deficit
The supply alternatives that were tested a~e shown in the table below:
Alt’--’--]’~ard elee~c
contract (fixed
price)
MY:, 10-
4
_
Spot
market
(floating
Balance,
Balance "
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance.
Bal~’~ce
Call options (floating
price with a cap = $1
above forward price)
Gas unit with
gas..
purchased at
Gas unit with
gas-
purehas, ed at
VL Analysis results
B~st alternative ¯The best supply alternative (from expected value perspective) includes the following options:
¯buy electricity forward (i.el at fixed prices);..¯ "
¯buy call options; and
¯own gas generation for which gas is purchased forward.
.Cost to Serve .Load .
The cost of this alternative (expressed as.20-year net present value of the commodity cost to .
serve forecasted load) is $1;47 billion. For calendar year 2005, the cost is about $56 million. ¯
The cumulative probability distribution of the 20’year 6ost is shown in the following chart. It
shows the effects of the throe uncertainties: 1) spot electric prices; 2) spot gas prices; and 3)
Westem costs.
Preliminary Anal~,sis of FAeetric Supp]yPorffoh0’s post.-2004Deficit
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.~°’~
0.i
0
Cost to Serve Load CEV = $1469million)
for period 2005 through 2024
-2375 -2250 -2125 ~2000 -1875 -1750 -1625 -1500 -137f -1250 -I125 -1000 -875 -750
20-ye~ NPV of .Cost to Se~ Fore~.aste.d Load
As shown in the chart, the cost to serve load can range-from an extreme iow Of $800 milli0n to-
an extreme high of $2.4 bison. The 10-50-90 (cumulative probabilities) are $823 million., $1.35
billion, and $2.3 billion, respectively.
Uncertain Variables
Of the uncertain variables, tested, the one with the greatest impact on both the outcome and the
optimal alternative is spot electric price. If electric spot prices are high, the optimal altemativ.e
stH] remains (and the value of the calls and forward purchases is increased), but the costfor any
unlined load increases. If electric spot prices am low, then the OpRma] alternative is to buy on
the short-termmarket as any purchases fixed forwardam out of the money and calls will be
unexer~ised. I.ti this case, the NPV cost could go to $645 million.
Changes in the cost.of Western will change the cost to serve, but not the decision about
alternative. Changes in the cost of the spot gas price could change the alternative slightly and
change the cost slightly. If gas spot prices turn out to be low, the optimal alternative would have
been to purchase the gas on a floating basis, .rather than fixed~ and the cost ch~ge to the supply
portfoho would be minimal (less than 5% for a 25 MW gas-fired plant).
In this analysis, hydrologic uncertainty was not introduced since it was a long-term analysis.
The additi0n.of hydro uncertainty to the analysis does not change the optimal alternative, but
does widen the distribution of possible.costs. In f~ct, including hydro uncertainty does not even
6hange the 10-50-90 (cumulative probabilities) of the optimal alternative. However, the extreme
cases range from a low of $650 million to a high of $3.2 bi!lio~.
9 " "¯ Prelimiiiary Analysis of Electric SUpply Portfolio’s post:2004 Deficit
Mar~r-to-Market Asset/Liability. ~~e mark-to’market valuation of the alternatives l~ads (as ~xpecteA) to the sam~ o~timal
alternative. As shown in the chart below, the shape of the cumulative probability distribution is
exactly upside down from ffaat for the cost to serve load. This chart, however, shows the
likelihood of the supply portfolio being above market costs (when the MTM is negative), -The
chartshows that this outcome occurs about 25% 6f the time.
Mark to Market Asset (EV=.$831 milliott)
....~ t3 ......"Pbeliminary Analy.~is 0f~eetric SupplyP0ttf01io’ spost2004"DefiCft ¯
Aj~rnativ~
Both the cost to serve load.aad the mark-to-marl~t asset for each supply almmatives studied was
calculated. The chart below shows the low, expired value, and high values for Zhe cost to serve
loci for each Supply alternative..
Cost to Serve Load for each alternative
3500
3000
500
10% chance cos.t gmatar than this
10%-ch.n~ cost
float g~. ~
The chin shows that the Optimal almmafivc is.both the. one with the lowest expect.cost and.the
lowest "fisk’:,. or range around the;expected valu¢. However, it.is.not the lowest cost in all
futures. The 100% spot alternative will do .thebest in future characmrized b3~ low. spot market "
prices, but would costthe most ffmar]~. t-pfice.s...are high: As expect~l, ~ display of mark-to-
" market.ill-show the exact opposite with the optimal alternative having the highest expected
value and the highest range fo~ mark-to-mat. ketasset. Relying !00% on .the spot market will.result in a lower efpecteA value for MTM," but a small~r range and will never be negative.
The fact that cost to Serve load:andmark-to-market asset are complimentary requires decisibn-
makers tO balance those two objectives.
VII.Preliminary Recommendations.
Post 2004, Palo Alto is short about 75 MW in the QI (first quarter of the calendar year -
Ianum-y, ~ebruary,and March), 50 MW inQ2 and QB.and 100 MW in Q4. As a fraction of 10ad,
this ranges from a tow of 25% in the spring to Over 75% in thefall. This exposure to spot market
prices could result in dramatically in~reased costs. Pot this reason, itis recommended that Palo
Alto fix the price for some part of its future needs prior to 2005: A reasonabl~ amount might be
11 Preliminary Analysis of Electric Supply Portfolio’ s post-2004 Defick
25 MW.round-the clock for five or ten yegrs.
- of a gas generation unit is a good option.
In addition, the analysis showed that owning part
Asa first cut for filling the post-2005 energy deficit, the f011owing supply options.are
recommended:
Purchase gas-fired generation for 25-50 MW. This could be done independently,or
jointly with other entities, such as other NCPA members.
7..Hedge the fuel costs of the gas-firM unit by fixing or capping the price of gas.
8~Purchase electricity forward fort~n years for half of the deficit remaining after the gas
plant.output (~pproximately 30 MW a~erage).
9.Purchase electricity ~orward for five years for half of the. deficit remaining after the gas
plant outputand the ten-year _forward electric purchases (approximately 15 MW.average).
10.Rely on short-term-purchases or the sPOt market forthe remainder of the d~ficit
(approximately 15 MW.average). ~.
This strategywill result in amore balanced portfolio than the current one, .w, hich is heavily
weighted with hydroelectric resources. -
Load and. Resource Balance
(~.verage hydro year)
160
140
120
100
80
60
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul .Aug . Sep Oct Nov Dec
VIH. Additional analysis to be done
This report is preliminary and provides a broad overview of the post-2004 energy ’~a0le" and
potential supply options to fill it. Before. going ahead with any recommendation, additional
analyses need to beperformed. The following are some analyses that are recommended:
’Pi’elimi~a~A~alysfs of El~tric SupplyPortfolio’s.post-’2004D¢fieit
Value Of locating generation in Palo Alto- Any additional value in increased local
reliability if a generation plant is located physically in or near Palo Alto should be
-dstermined.
Gas g~neration plant Cost - The cost estimates used in the study to analyze .the gas,fired
unit were from NCPA. However, a more thorough investigation into the costs for~uch a
venture is win’ranted, including a financi~ analysis of alternatives to fund the capi.tal
costs. " "
.Pre-2005 mark-to-market analysis - Palo Alto’s current rates are well below market
costs, .however-that relationship, may change beginning in 2005. The difference between
Palo Alto’s costs and market value prior to.2005 will show the-potential ,room" available
for rate increases prior to 2005. T~i. "s information can be used to de~,elop a financial and -
rate plan for preparing for the post~2005 period. .:,.
Pre-2005 plans to builh reserves - Although Palo Alto faces risks in its electric supply
costs now, those risks could increase dramatically after 2004. The appropriate level for
the rate stabilization reserve needs to be determinedbasdd.on those risks. The pre-2005
period can be used to build up reserves to the proper levels since CPAU’s current rates
¯ are well below market prices.
DSM ~’alue - Although this study only evaluate.d supply options, demand-side measures
could well figure into a post-2004 energy hole solution. Information needs to be gathered
regarding the availability, reliability, cost ~ud other fea .~es of DSM progran~.
Financial .analysis - Anyset of alternatives ¯should be evaluated from the utility’s
financial perspective. A financial analysis would show how ~ternatives would be
funded,the effect on rates, and thd risks inherent in the position of the u~ty.
13 Preliin~mary.’Analysis of E1 .ec.tric Supply Portfolio’s post-2004Deficit
Discussion of Year 2005-2010 Electric
Portfolio Development Plan
& Implementation Process
Update to Preliminary Recommendations approved by UAC in
-February 2001
UAC Informational Presentation on September 5, 2001
Outline
Objective of Presentation
Outline of Preliminary Analysis Recommendations approved-
by UAC in Feb 2001
Discussion of Principles for Developing the Electric Portfolio
Discussion of Portfoli0 Types and Recommended Electric
Portfolio
UAC Discussion!Input
Next Steps
Objectives of Presemation
Provide an update of the elecWi~ portfolio development plan
Obtain feedback from ~UAC regarding different polie~, questions
- Tolling Contrac~ts vs..Invastment in Power Plauts
- Attraeti~,¢ness of Pre-Paid Contracts to Leverage Low Cost Of Capital
- Timing & Duration of Purchase Commitments
- Palo Alto’s ’Go A]one’ Stm~gy with West.ern
- Generation Options within the City
- Objectives in Developing a Renewable Generation Portfolio Standards
- Portfolio Development Plan & Implementation Process
Obtain feedbackfrom UAC regarding stz£fpmposal to make a kmall
purchase commimmnt to fill the ’energy hole’ at prevailing forward
prices (25 MW, Q4 month pu-ehas~s for 3 years bcgimTing Oct 2005 @ -3.5 e~ntra’kWh)
Prelim. Recommendations Approved by UAC in Feb 2001
Purchase gas-fired generation for 25-50 MW. This could be done
independently or jointly with other entities, such as other NCPA members
Hedge the fuel costs of the gas-fired unit by fixing or capping the price of
gas
Purchase electricity forward for ten years for half of the deficit remaining.
after the gas plant output (approximately 30 MW average) .
Purchase electricity forward for five years for half of the deficit remaining
after the gas plant output and the ten-year forward electric purchases
(approximately 15 MW average)
Kely on Short-term purchases or the spot market for the remainder of the
deficit (approximately 15 MW average)
Primary Objectives for Developing Electric Portfolio
T’ne Electric Portfolio was DeveloPed based on 5 Primary Objectives
1. Ensure Low and Stable Retail Rates for Customers
2. Maintain Palo Alto Supply Portfolio Cost Advantage Compared to Market Cost
3. Maintain Palo Alto Suppl~ Portfolio Cost Advantage Compared to PG&E
4. Develop a Renewable Resource Portfolio in Accordance with Coundfl Guidelines
5. Develop Local Generation to Meet Customer/City Reliability Goals "
Strategies to Achieve Portfolio Development Objectives
1. Reduce portfolio cost fluctuations mused by hydro production variability
by diversifying to fossil fired/renewable generation technologies, and by
maintaining adequate supply rote stabilization reserves
2.Maintain a flexible resource portfolio to provide commodity product
needs of customers and achieve the 5 primary objectives outlined
3. Make energy deficit purchases/investment using a ladder-approach with
different commitment dates, commitment terms/dtwation, start dates, etc.
4. Obtain input from residents/rate payers, UAC/Couneil. when developing
renewable resource/energy-efficiency anda local generation portfolios
5. Preserve Western Contract and CVP Base R.esouree value, while
maintaining relative independence from Westem’s custom products
3
Inventory of CPAU’s Existing Generation & Transmission Portfolio, Year 2005
Wes~m B~e Res~xx~ 2024 t75_ ~ ~30 to 770 N:10.11 N~ ~ -20
C~,,~ Hy~o P~ar~2~2 54 130 50 to 235 I 118 9,5 0A 73 ~2JMW~
CPA,U Re~l Lo~ .
Discussion of Potential Portfolio Profiles
Short Term Commitments, Large Cost Volatility ....
Maintain Calaveras/Westem Base Resource, and any ad~t~oz:~], resource
commitment to.be < 5 yeax tern3..
Medium Term Commitment~ Moderate Cosi Volatility
Maintain Calaveras/Westem Base Resource, and make new contract
purchase commitments with varying~terms, but no greater than 10 years.
Long Term Commitment~ Low Cost Volatili~
Maintain Calaveras/Westem Base Resource, and make considerable fixed
price purchase commitments for 20-30 year terms at fixed!variable prices.
Renewable Portfolio Commitment
Renewable resource portfolio target of meeting 5%(moderate)/10%
(aggressive) of energy needs of the City by 2010-2015 period. This could be
apphed to any of the above generic port£oho profiles
4
Potential Tools/D~al Types to D~velop Portfolios
Portfolio 1: Short Term Commitments, Large Cost Volatility
1800 c.vL=.i
Short term market purchases, 0.5
lO
5
Portfolio 2: Medlu.m Tenn_~ Commitment, Moderate Cost Volatility
-Yeer PurchMe, 25 M~N Q,k’Q4~parlod (l:)eal ~ 4)
~11~ 1)
Portfolio 3: Long Term Commitment, Low Cost Volatility
’10 Yolr Purchase, 25 MW Qt/Q4 Porlod (~:~ "ryp04)
5 Year Purchase, 25 MW Q4 Period (Oeal ~ t)
12
Recommended Portfolio, Load- Resource Balance
Recommended Po~ffollo ~oz’d’ol;o 2) - Avenge Hydro Year
Sources of Energy: Electric Pot~’~ollo CharacterlstR~ Year 2005-2010
Av~rag~ Hydro Y~ar ¯ ~0 per~ntll~
Recommended Portfolio, Load - Resource Balance
Recommended Pomeolio (Portfolio 2) - Dry Hyd~ Ye~
Sources of Energy: Electric Por’doIlo Charact~. dstics Year 2005-2010
7
Recommended Porffoho~ Load - Resource Balance
Keeomm~mded Portfolio (Portfolio 2) - Wet Hydro Year
Sources of Energy:;Electrlc Portfolio CharacteriStics Year 2005-2010
Hydro Risk Mitigation Strateg~
.Hydro production highly variable by month and annual hydro condition
¯Average hydro production (Westem/Calaveras resource) is ~680
GWh/year compared to a City load of-l,200 GWh
¯The average production can vary from -380 GWh in very clW year to
1,000 GWh in a very wet year
¯The average commodity purchase cost can vary from ~$35 m~llion in an
average hydro year to ~ $48 million in a dry year
¯ "~ $26 million in a wet year
¯The annual cost variability will be managed with the use of supply rate
stabilization reserves without having to pass it on to customers
knmediately
¯Weather derivatives were found to an expensive way to manage hydro
production risk
¯Staff exploring the option of laying-offpart of the 54 MW Calaveras
ownel-Shlp
16
8
Retail Rate Projections 2005-2010¯"(~$5 million/year investment in renewable technologies, Portfolio Type
12¸
Comparison of projected Elect~c Commodity & Retall Rates:
Palo Alto vem;,s PG&E & I~rket, Year 2005-2010
17
Discussion Topics
Future Policy Direction
- Tolling Contracts vs. Inve.Can~nt in Power Plants
- Attractiveness of Pre-Paid Contracts to Leverage Low Cost of Capital
-. Timing & Duration of Purchase Commitments
- Palo Alto’s ’Go Alone’ Strategy with Western
- Generation Options within the City
- Market Purchases: Act Now vs. Late~, case for a forward purchase now
- Objectives in Developing a Renewable Generation Portfolio Standards
- Portfolio Development Plan & Implementation Process
Next Stsps
-Incorporate Feedba~h tmdertake additional analysis
-Interim UAC Recommendations on Sept 25, 2001
-Council Finance Committee, October 2001
-Council, end of October 2001
18
9
Tolling Contracts vs. Investment in Power Plants
A toll~ contrac,t attempt~ to mimic the cost of generation from an actual
power-plant and pmvid~s~ the mechanism/formula for pricing the energy.
Conlract 2948A is a tolling contract, with a pricing formula attempting to
mimic PG&E’s generation porffoho cost
Advantages of Tolling Contracts
¯TolRng contracts could have a shorter term commitment compared to
investmont in power plants& hence offers flexibility in term commitments
¯Tolling contract pricing st~cture is defined in the contract and is not subject to
construction cost over-runs, delays in operation, power plmf~opcrational risks
¯Contract could b.e prepaid to leverage City’s low cost of capital
D~advantages.of Tolling Contracts
¯performance and credit risks are higher in a tolling contract
¯Does n~t provide additional optionalities inhmvnt in owning physical assets like
scheduling, efficiency upgrades, etc.
19
Relative Merits of Pre-PaidContracts
A pre-~aid contract for electricity is similar to a large investment in a
power plant. However, instead of investing in tangible .generation
assets, the City hands-over a cash amount equivalent to the ~it~
investment in a power plaut for the promise of energy being delivered
at a cost lower than that the City would have otherwise paid in the
open market
Pre-paid contracts provide the mechanism to leverage the benefit of
City’s low cost of capital compared to a merchant power plant.
developer
There are a number of benefits and risks ass0c~ated with thistype of
contract. The primary risk is related to ’performance of the contract’.
The counter-party may default on the contract, after receiving a large
initial payment.
2O
10
Relative Merit of Pre-Paid Contracts
The City has the burden of satisfying Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) rules to demonstrate that such transactions have economic
merits over and beyond an arbitrage of the City’s ability to issue tax
exempt municipal bonds
-Once this burden of proof is satisfied, the City is free to issue t~x-
exempt municipal b _o~ds to consummate inch a deal and enjoy all
the benefits related to them .,
-The City is in the initial process of evMuating the merits 0~such a
tnmsaction and would provide det~ed recommendations to execute
such a contract if the merits out-weigh the risks of such a contract
UAClCouncfl guidance sought (e.g. 10% saving required before.
staff should pursue such opportunities)
21
Term Commitment when Making Purchase Decisions
¯With deregulation and the development of the electricity commo~ty
markets, City’s electricity needs can be purchased at any time, unlike
20 years ago under a monopolistic market structure.
¯Purchase commitments, duration, and ~ming is important for the sole
purpose of securing low and stable .l~rices
¯The 5 portfolio planning objectives are not congruent at all times
¯These objectives requires the nmintenance of a flem~ole portfoho with
different generation tectmologies and fuel price exposures, different
term]pricing commitments, start dates, etc.
¯Investment in a new power plants requires a technology and term
commitment of~30 yea~s.
, Preliminary staff recommendation is that any new purchase
commitment (other than those for renewable or local generation) to be
-10 years and no longer than 20 years
¯UAC/Council input sought in this area
11
Palo Alto’s ’Go Alone’ Strategy with Western
ARcr the end of the PG&E integration contract 2948A in December 2004, the
n~v Western contract that b~gins in January 2005 will provide access to the
bare hydro generation output of the CV’P projects only
This output, in the absence of an integration agmernent similar to the one
provided by PG&E during the pre-2004 p~iod, is highly variable by season
and annual hydro conditions
¯Although We.stun could providvits customers, including Pale Alto, insulation
from the hydro uncz~emin’ty in the hydro-only product, staffre~:ommend
managing the hydro unc~Cainty independently from Western b.ecause:
Pale Alto would not have contro.l ov~r what ’firming res~urc~’.oWest~rn
could purchase and all price risk associated with it
-The political risk of the pom"bility of We~<~m may be constrained by
fede~d funding authorization
-Western is likely to be a l~ss attractive ’credit cotmtcr-party’ for suppli~’s
of ’firming resource’ compared to Pale Alto ---> morn exp~ns~v¢ s~-vices
¯Staff seek UAC/Council guidanc~ on staff’s ’go alone’ strategy
Generation Options within the City
Local generation has the potential t~ increase supply reliability for the City,
avoid congestion and transmission charges, and provides local control
However, Palo Alto does not have any ideal sims f~r.~ large bas~-load plant,
but a sit~ close to the City’s waste-water treatment plant has the potential for a
50-100 MW siz~ unit
¯A pr~ "lunimry ’fatal flaw study’ has been commissioned to evaluate the
feas~ility of siting such a plant, and ff found feas~le and acc.~ptable to
residents, City may take a 10.20 IvfW ownership with additional contractual
fights to all of the power during emergencies
¯Additional 1-2 MW DG sites at customer facilities being evaluated
¯Cost of energy generated.by Such a peaking-intermediate local generation
plant is expected to be high, and does not provide a match for the City’s
commodity need for base-load type generation resov.rce
24
12
Market Purchases - Purchase Now or Wait?
Market prices have declined considerably since the high in April 2001, but ~11
-50% above the lowprie~ seen in 199711998
5 year round-the- clock electricity contracts starting year 2005 could be
purchased @’-4 cents/kWh
,Electricity contracts for the Qi/Q4 months when the ’energy hole’ is the largest
could be purchased for -3.5.~:L’nts/kWh
¯At prevailing forward prices, some of the generators have postponed their new
genert~on buildup plans due to the low electricity forward prices
25
Market Purchases - Purchase Now or Wait?
The higher cest to build at prevailing natural gas prices (compared to the
contract price for electricity) has been confirmed by generators .approaching
the City and NCPA’s own evaluatiotm
General thought in ttie market is that the electricity price pendul .um has now
swung too far in the direction of unsustainable ’low price.s’
Staff contemplating an immediate purchase of a 25 MW fixed prices contract
for a 3 year term starting in year 2005 to fill ~10% of the post 2004 energy
hole
This strategy to make a small.purchase now is consistent with a staggered
eommitment/laddering approach to filling the energy hole
13
Renewable Portfolio Standard & Implementation Process
¯Customer surveys indicate support for the development of renewable
energy sources and Ulilities Strategic Plan calls for programs to improve
quality of the environment
¯Renewable resources continue to be more expensive compared to
conventional fossil fueled based generation technologies
¯CPAU is in the process of formulating several scenarios for UAC/Cotmcfl
consideration for developing a renewable electricity generationportfolio
¯Scenarios include meeting 3-10% of City’s total energy needs via
renewable resources by 2010-2015 time period with total expenditure
commitment of $30-$100 million over a 10-15 year period
¯Technologies considered are wind, distNouted solar phot0-voltaics (Pv),
central solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, small hydro, landfill gas
, After UAC/Council input, a final recommendation portfolio standard and
streamlined implementation process within approved guidelines will be
developed
27
Renewable/Alternative Energy Investment Opporttmities
Roadmap for Decision Makers
A tradeoff adses from the competing objectives of maintaining cost advanta.qe
relative to market and pursuing environmentally sustainable resources
1.How much cost advantage (headroom) should the city trade for
increased environmental sustainabihty?
5 % of Energy? ½C/kWh? 8% rate increase? $10millionperyear? HowLong?
2. How should that pool of money be allocated?
blol~m
Olher
So|~
10%
Renewable/Alternative Energy Investment Tradeoffs
Commitment to ~Jtainable tec}mologi~ impact rates.
,.....-).l-*Cust~merOwned DSM 25MW
~Solar Thermal Elect~55 MW
?
......-.p-S roll Hy~27 MW
25 MW
0%2%4% 6% 8%10% .....~’~"
Percent of Ener[y
S3~2
$301
$253
$12~
$73
~2
Renewable/Alternative Energy Investment Opportunities
A few significantly different portfolios achieve different objectives.
Portfolio A:Portfolio C:
Low Co~t Sun & Wind
Portfolio B:
DSM, Lzr~e Solar & Clean GM
Energy Cost
Ratt Impact at
Capital for t0%
of EnetW
Fraction of Load
for $100 million
Capital
2
Renewable/Alternative Energy Policy Questions?
Several PolicF Decisions are required specific to sustainable resources.
¯ What is Palo Alto’s willingness to pay for how much "green"?
Higher Cost vs. sustainability preferences as a policy
1. > 5% of energy with <10% increase in rates?
2.50 GWh/year @ < $80/MWh?
¯ Why do we need a renewable portfolio policy?
Underlying motivation sets the foundation for resource planing
1.Interest in meeting Kyoto target: Electricity consumption related CO2
emission reduced by 7% from 1990 levels by 20107
2.Reduce CO2/NOx emissions related to eleelrieity consumption by
10% from 2000 levels by 2010?
31
Portfolio Development Plan & Implementation Process
¯Initial analysis provided in February 2001
¯Implementation plan being developed - today’s update
¯Staff sees opportunity to purchase some of the energy needs for
the post 2004 period now due to relatively low prices (25 MW Q4
Purchase for a 3 Year Term, Deal Type 1)
¯UAC approval of final portfolio plan, implementation and
reporting process at the next UAC meeting on Sept 25th, 2001
¯After UAC approval, Finance/Council approval, staff will
implement plan within approved guidelines
¯Progress of implementation will be reported on a quarterly basis
32
Next Steps
Staff seeks UAC guidance on staff approach outlined above
Staff will incorpomm UAC input and seek UAC approval on
September 25, 2001
-Approval of 5 objectives and strategies to achieve objectives
-Approval of the immediate purchase of a 25 MW, 3 year, Q4 purchase
¯Obtain council ap~oval of the above in October
¯Return to UAC, as appropriate prior to implementing further
transactions
Further development of renewable portfolio standards with
UAC/Council input
33
Electric Portfolio Development and Implementation Questions
¯How much commitment?
- Long vs. Short Term Commitment
-Fixed price, variable prices
- Renewable/energy efficiency investment
¯What are the Risks?
- Large irreversible commitment to above market cost resources: renewable,
local, generation, long term fixed price contract
- Administrative burden, over diversification
¯What addilioual strategic and tactical details ?
- Procurement strategy (e.g. Own plants vs. partnerships vs. contracts)
-FossiI fuel plant (natural gas and/or coal)
- Timing of commitment (laddering, start 2001 vs. 2005)
-Financial details (borrow, pre-pay, capitalize/expense expenditure)
- Plan revision frequency (e.g. Review annually?. Every three years?)
34
TO:UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
9
FROM:UTHTIES DEPARTMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 3, 2001
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRIMARY OBJECTIVES FOR
LONG-TERM ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST
This report requests the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommends that the City
Council approves the four Primary Objectives which will guide the electric portfofio
development and management.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
This is a follow up to the items discussed at the September 25, 2001 UAC meeting. The
revised portfolio planning objectives outlined below in an attempt by staff to reflect the
input provided by the commissioners at the last meeting.
Primary_ Obiectives in Developing Electric Supply Portfolio Plan
¯Ensure low and stable electric supply rates for customers.
Provide superior financial performance to customers and the City by maintaining
Palo Alto’s supply portfolio cost advantage compared to market cost and retail
supply rate advantage compared to PG&E.
Enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing
opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation.
Balance environmental, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when considering
renewable resource and energy efficiency investments
Though these objectives are broad in scope and may be in conflict, a set ofpre-defined
and City-wide accepted Electric Portfolio Objectives will provide staff with a degree of
focus and establishes an overarching set of boundary conditions to develop a portfolio
plan.
Page 1 of 2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND UTILITIES STRATEGIC PLAN
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. The
Primary Objectives support Strategies 2, 4, and 7 of the Utilities Strategic Plan (USP).
The recommended purchase of the electric contract supports the Primary Objectives and.
is an important component of USP Strategy 3: "Preserve supply cost advantage compared
to the market price."
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no resource impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Executing the recommended purchase contract does not constitute a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
Upon UAC approval, staff will seek Finance Committee/Council approval of the Primary
Objectives.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner
Jane Ratchye, Senior Resource Planner.
Karl Knapp, Management Specialist
Girish Balachandran
Acting Assistant Director of Utilities
Page 2 of 2
--DRAFT--
Bechtel: Okay. Any other comments on the Long Term Agenda? Good. Thank you.
Thanks very much. We’ll, John and then with myself, hopefully we can work through
this.
APPROVE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES FOR ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO
DEVELOPMENT
Bechtel: Next item 9 is Approve the Primary Objectives for Electric Portfolio
Development. An action item. A carry over from our September 25th meeting and I have
a proposal in front of us. This item is a change from the previous recommendation.
There were 5 primary objectives. I see in their recommendations that this time we have 4
objectives and so proceed to.
Ulrich.: Well one thing we didn’t do is we didn’t show you the ones that’s not here that
listed what we had last time so if you have a copy of them, you can very easily see what
the changes are. I think we’ve, since we’ve had a chance to talk to just about each one of
you, and show you some of the additional drafts that most of your comments are in here.
So it would be better to answer questions. My objective tonight would be to get your
concurrence to it and if you wanted to add things like your definitions of what these
objectives are or prioritize them, that would be very helpful too so when we come back,
we’re speaking the same language and the same interpretation of what each of these
objectives mean.
Bechtel: Commissioners? Comments on the objectives? Mr. Ferguson.
Fer~m~son: I think he did a pretty good job of bobbing and ~veaving through all the
comments last time so I can’t pick any fights with this. I just want to go back to the
fundamentals of why we’re doing it. We have some pretty generic statements of strategy
and mission in the objectives and I assume that what we have here is a thinking frame
work that the staff is going to use to make trade offs and brain storm about portfolio
options and this is just a way of organizing our work together. You’re going to use the
spring work ahead of time when we see the portfolio options delivered to us, you’re
going to present it to us, basically under these 4 bullets and I think that’s just an efficient
way for us to communicate. If any one of us discovers a bright idea for a major fifth
objective, I’m sure we’ll bring it up, but for starters, this seems just fine.
Bechtel: Mr. Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum: Yeah, I would commend the staff and I would move approval as presented
in the memo.
Bechtel: We have a motion by Mr. Rosenbaum to approve the primary objectives as
presented. Do I hear a second?
Carlson: I’ll second.
UAC Minutes 100301.doc 42
--DRAFT--
Bechtel: Second by Mr. Carlson. More discussion on this? I see no discussion. I’m
assuming that we will all vote on this according to your deepest feelings. The staff has
done a good job in reflecting what we wanted, so all those in favor, please say ’T’.
All Commissioners: I
Bechtel: Opposed? None? Motion passes unanimously.
Ulrich: Thank you. I would ask maybe to set a clarification and that would be that these
objectives in a sense are in order of priority or if one is in conflict, we look to the above
or would you like us to just get them all out?
Bechtel: That’s a good question. In terms of priority, I would say that I believe that they
are in order of my own personal priorities of how you should operate, but other
comments? Is there a sense of prioritization by which the order in which they’re
presented or by any other statements in there? I don’t see that other than just the listing
here, but it’s, you raise an issue that there ought to be, that perhaps there should be some
discussion on that.
Ulrich: We don’t need limitations in a sense. We can bring it back, but I, my expectation
in saying this is that the top one ensure low and stable electric supply rates for customers
is pretty important and I would look at that as one that is probably superior to some of the
other ones in some sense.
Bechtel: Mr. Carlson.
Carlson: The only one I’d push up on the list is reliability and there are situations
especially given the interest of our large customers and I would say even our residential
customers that you’re going to have to spend some money at times to ensure higher
reliability which is exactly what we did with the generation project.
Bechtel: Other comments on priorities? I think. So with that we’ll conclude that these
notes should be your guiding principles and filling the hole.
Ulrich: Thank you.
Bechtel: Thank you very much for everyone’s patience in sitting through this. Do I hear
a motion? Yes.
Ulrich: I’m sorry. There was a question Dick, pardon me, Commissioner Rosenbaum
suggested having another meeting. Did you want to discuss that Dick?
Rosenbaum: Yeah, I think that was our intention at the end of our last special meeting.
You know if staff is prepared and there’s some useful information you think you can get
from us in the next couple of weeks, I think we should certainly consider it.
UAC Minutes 100301.doc 43
--DRAFT--
: Was there an extra meeting or moving the meeting up so Dexter can come?
Rosenbaum: No it was an extra meeting.
Balachandran: I think it would help us, the staff, if our intention was to have as many
meetings as you wanted to get on the same page, so what would you like to discuss at that
meeting? You did mention renewables.
Rosenbaum: Yeah, yeah, I think we left renewables up in the air and perhaps Carl .is
trying to prepare something for us and won’t be ready in the next 2 weeks.
Balachandran: He is, I will check with him, but from the last time I talked to him, he was
ready to go. In fact, he felt he wanted to get into more detail and disappointed he could
not at the last meeting, so he’s ready to go. I do know he’s taking a week off, I think next
week, so I need to check on the schedule to make sure he’s set.
Ulrich: Excuse me. Maybe at this point, just briefly reviewing everybody’s calendar. If
we put one together in 2 weeks, is that good or?
??: That works.
??: That works. The 17th.
Ulrich: Do you leave on the 17th.9
Dawes: No, the 17th is 2 weeks from today which we could. No I leave on the 22nd
Monday.
Bechtel: The 17th works for me, but it turns out there’s a high probability that I will be
absent for the November meeting so.
Balachandran: That’s the week he’s not here.
Bechtel: I’m sorry.
Balachandran: That’s the week he’s not here.
Ulrich: The week of the 17th.
Balachandran: Week of the 15th.
Rosenbaum: Then a week from tonight, is that too soon? The 10th.
Balachandran: I will talk to him and maybe send the UAC.
: I’m not available on the 10th.
UAC Minutes 100301.doc 44
--DRAFT--
: 9rh?
: I can’t do it on the 10th either.
Bechtel: Let me also add one other thought. One of the other issues was basically
around the idea of reliability which was local generation and correct me if I’m wrong,
that was also an issue we’re quite interested in so to pull that together we may not want to
brush too far ahead with that, so that would be say next week is too early, the 17th is not
possible, then the following week, the 24th.
Ulrich: One suggestion might be is that you can just send me an email telling me the
dates that we can all share and what we may do instead of say like local generation would
be to talk about what is local generation and what would be some of the advantages of
putting a coal plant in Palo Alto or something like that and get at least those kind of
things out. Because the studies we’re working on with NCPA on the value of local
generation may turn out that cost or the benefits of getting someplace else may be a lot
clearer in a few months. I think for ease of things, all you can really talk about is in
generalities so that we get clarity or get public understanding of what we’re talking about.
Bechtel: Well perhaps we ought to just. Why don’t we do this then? We address
renewables and then if we have another special meeting or with using as the agenda is
available, we can discuss the other one. I’m not sure that there’s a great sense of urgency
that we deal with this in a month so.
Ulrich: Yeah, I’m sorry for mucking around it. We’re being a little hesitant. We ought
to look at the agenda for next month and see if we can just put the renewables on that.
You’ll be gone though, Commissioner Dawes?
Dawes: And Mr. Bechtel.
Bechtel: And I’m likely to be gone too the way it looks like right now.
Ulrich: Well maybe we can just adjust the regular meeting to another time?
: When are you back?
Ulrich: Do we move that forward Commissioner Dawes or back?
Dawes: I’m out of pocket October 22- November 21.
Ulrich: Well.
Bechtel: It sounds to me like email exchange of being in town is the first order of
business.
UAC Minutes 100301.doc 45
--DRAFT--
Ulrich: Just send it to me and I’ll get back to you Mr. Bechtel.
Bechtel: Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
Ferg~son: So moved.
Bechtel: Moved by Mr. Ferguson. Seconded by Mr. Carlson.
say "eye".
: We’re voting with our feet.
All Commissioners: Eye.
And all in favor, please
UAC Minutes 100301.doc 46