Meeting Utility Resource Needs with Solar


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We are the #4 ranked wind project developer in North America, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance's report, "H2 2013 North America Wind Market Outlook".
    For reference:
    Geronimo has a strategic partnership with Enel Green Power (EGP):
    2nd leading generator of renewable energy in the world
    700+ operating plants globally with 7,000+ MW of capacity
    2012 revenue = ~$2.7 billion
    EBIDTA of ~$2 billion
    Market capitalization of ~$8 billion
    A majority-owned subsidiary of Enel S.p.A.
    Second largest utility in Europe
    Investment grade credit rating
  • A key point of the Competitive Resource Acquisition Process was intended to solicit offers for Capacity – not energy. Specifically, Xcel needed peaking capacity, but not a lot of energy.
    Capacity requirements are managed by MISO. Essentially, MISO monitors each utilities peak load, and requires each utility to serve that load + a buffer of approximately 15%. Each generating unit, whether it be coal, gas, solar or wind – has an accredited capacity. That is to say the statistical reliability of a particular unit to be available during peak periods. Wind is accredited for 13% of its nameplate whereas gas peaker is typically over 90%. Solar – falls in between those two categories as it reliable delivers power during the peak periods. For MISO, that is the hours of 1-3pm EST during the months of June, July and August.
    We designed Aurora to maximize its accredited capacity by increasing the DC to AC ratio and by utilizing a linear tracker. Whereas, typical solar is in the 50-65% accredited.
  • Note: reduced needs
  • Will need to populate slide after ppt is complete and add visuals.
  • Meeting Utility Resource Needs with Solar

    1. 1. Meeting Utility Resource Needs with Solar: The Merits of the Aurora Solar Project Nathan Franzen | Geronimo Energy, Director of Solar Lindsey Hemly | Fredrikson & Byron, Legal Counsel March 19, 2014
    2. 2. Pg. 2
    3. 3. Pg. 3
    4. 4. Pg. 4 The Impact of Window Energy Efficiency and How to Make Smart Choices Thursday, April 10th 11:00 – 12:00 CST Window retrofit technologies applicable in Minnesota’s two climate zones as a way for building owners to save money. Target Audience •Building managers and facility professionals •Utility commercial program managers •Commercial and residential building envelope contractors •Window and window film manufacturers/installers •Building scientists and design professionals Gustav Brandstrom Project Engineer, CEE
    5. 5. Pg. 5 Presenters & Overview Nathan Franzen Director of Solar Lindsey Hemly Legal counsel Presentation Outline •Geronimo background •Overview of project site, capacity, and innovations •Benefits of this project over other resource options •Replicability of project model
    6. 6. Geronimo Energy • 4th largest wind energy developer in the U.S.A. • Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN • Decades of expertise, on-the- ground experience • Over 1,300 MW set for construction 2014-2016 • Ground-mount, rooftop, utility and commercial scale solar offerings • Geronimo has a strategic partnership with Enel Green Power 6March 19, 2014
    7. 7. Project Specifications •Operational Capacity: 100 MW •Location: 16 Minnesota counties •Construction Timeline: 2015 - 2016, or 4-9 months for each site •Number of Sites: ~25 (primary and alternate) •Project Cost: ~$250 million •Local Tax Revenue: up to $240,000 annually* •Expected COD: December 1, 2016 7March 19, 2014
    8. 8. Project Details •100 megawatt (MW) AC distributed solar resource •Utilizes solar arrays from 2 - 10 MW across Xcel’s service territory •Interconnects to multiple Xcel Energy distributed substations in MN •Provides energy and MISO accredited capacity to Xcel and its customers • The Aurora Solar Project will provide a cost effective alternative to thermal generation. 8March 19, 2014
    9. 9. Unique design delivers many benefits: •71% MISO accredited capacity –Helps utilities meet reliability requirements –100 MW AC = 71 MW of accredited capacity •Distribution delivery = Reduction in line loss (4-5%) •Elimination of transmission costs –Increases overall grid capacity 9March 19, 2014
    10. 10. Unique design delivers many benefits: •Geographic diversification of generation assets –No point source failure (think polar vortex) •Cost –Fixed price, no fuel cost uncertainty •Meets solar standards 10March 19, 2014
    11. 11. How Did We Get Here? • PUC found that Xcel had a need of up to 500 MW by 2019 • Need was defined as “peaking or intermediate” capacity • Xcel wanted to propose its own resources to fill the need • With Xcel participation, the PUC evaluates and selects the best resource(s) 11March 19, 2014
    12. 12. What Was Proposed? Xcel: 3 208 MW Combustion Turbines (CTs) Invenergy: 3 160 MW CTs Calpine: 345 MW expansion of Mankato Combined Cycle (CC) GRE: 200 MW short term capacity credits Geronimo: Aurora SolarMarch 19, 2014 12
    13. 13. ALJ Lipman’s Recommendation: • Xcel’s actual need is uncertain • Aurora is most economical option – Least cost option based on Strategist modeling – Lowest Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) • Scalability – Solar modular design and short lead time is more suited in a situation where the need is rapidly changing. 13March 19, 2014
    14. 14. ALJ Lipman’s Recommendation: • Renewable Preference Warranted • Gas proposals not fully vetted. – Issues with non-firm gas, unresolved interconnections etc. – Gas bidders did not offer “fixed price” leaving rate payers exposed. • Aurora will help meet numerous state policy goals, including the solar standard • If the PUC finds additional need, choose GRE 14March 19, 2014
    15. 15. ALJ Lipman Determines Aurora Solar Is Most Economical Option "Since 1991, Minnesota has had a statutory preference in favor of renewable energy sources. Yet, that preference is overridden when the nonrenewable source has a lower total cost. Notwithstanding the statutory preference, it seemed that nonrenewable energy sources always won the head-to-head cost comparisons. Not anymore." – ALJ Lipman 15March 19, 2014
    16. 16. Next Steps • Xcel and DOC disagree with ALJ report • Xcel recommends Black Dog + Calpine and Invenergy • PUC can accept, reject or modify ALJ recommendation • Oral Argument 3/25, Deliberations 3/27 March 19, 2014 16
    17. 17. In Summary Competitive Resource Acquisition Process •Pros: – Transparent process – Allows side by side comparison of competing proposals – Eliminates Utility bias towards rate based projects • Con’s – Expensive, but could be improved upon •Next Steps 17March 19, 2014
    18. 18. Contact Us 952-988-9000 Thank you! 18March 19, 2014
    19. 19. Question & Answer Webinar Link: 952-988-9000
    20. 20. Pg. 20