2018 Annual Sustainability Report CONTENTS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Board-Approved 2013-2014 Transmission Plan
2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 APPENDIX A: System Data California ISO/MID A-1 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 A1 Existing Generation Table A1-1: Existing generation plants in PG&E planning area Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Humboldt Bay 166 Kekawaka 4.9 Pacific Lumber 32.5 PG&E - LP Samoa 25 Humboldt Fairhaven 17.3 Blue Lake 12 Humboldt Area Total 258 Santa Fe 160 Bear Canyon 20 Westford Flat 30 Western Geo 38 Geysers 5 53 Geysers 6 53 PG&E - North Coast and Geysers 7 53 North Bay Geysers 8 53 Geysers 11 106 Geysers 12 106 Geysers 13 133 Geysers 14 109 Geysers 16 118 California ISO/MID A-2 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Geysers 17 118 Geysers 18 118 Geysers 20 118 Bottle Rock 55 SMUD Geo 72 Potter Valley 11 Geo Energy 20 Indian Valley 3 Sonoma Landfill 6 Exxon 54 Monticello 12 North Coast and North Bay Area Total 1,619 Pit River 752 Battle Creek 17 Cow Creek 5 North Feather River 736 South Feather River 123 PG&E - West Feather River 26 North Valley Black Butte 11 CPV 717 Hatchet Ridge Wind 103 QFs 353 North Valley Area Total 2,843 California ISO/MID A-3 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Wadham 27 Woodland Biomass 25 UC Davis Co-Gen 4 Cal-Peak Vaca Dixon 49 Wolfskill Energy Center 60 Lambie, Creed and Goosehaven 143 EnXco 60 Solano 100 High Winds 200 Shiloh 300 Bowman Power House 4 PG&E - Camp Far West (SMUD) 7 Central Valley Chicago Park Power House 40 Chili Bar Power House 7 Colgate Power House 294 Deer Creek Power House 6 Drum Power House 104 Dutch Plat Power House 49 El Dorado Power House 20 Feather River Energy Center 50 French Meadow Power House 17 Green Leaf No. -
APPENDIX A: System Data
2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 APPENDIX A: System Data California ISO/MID A-1 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 A1 Existing Generation Table A1-1: Existing generation plants in PG&E planning area Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Humboldt Bay 166 Kekawaka 4.9 Pacific Lumber 32.5 PG&E - LP Samoa 25 Humboldt Fairhaven 17.3 Blue Lake 12 Humboldt Area Total 258 Santa Fe 160 Bear Canyon 20 Westford Flat 30 Western Geo 38 Geysers 5 53 Geysers 6 53 PG&E - North Coast and Geysers 7 53 North Bay Geysers 8 53 Geysers 11 106 Geysers 12 106 Geysers 13 133 Geysers 14 109 Geysers 16 118 California ISO/MID A-2 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Geysers 17 118 Geysers 18 118 Geysers 20 118 Bottle Rock 55 SMUD Geo 72 Potter Valley 11 Geo Energy 20 Indian Valley 3 Sonoma Landfill 6 Exxon 54 Monticello 12 North Coast and North Bay Area Total 1,619 Pit River 752 Battle Creek 17 Cow Creek 5 North Feather River 736 South Feather River 123 PG&E - West Feather River 26 North Valley Black Butte 11 CPV 717 Hatchet Ridge Wind 103 QFs 353 North Valley Area Total 2,843 California ISO/MID A-3 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Wadham 27 Woodland Biomass 25 UC Davis Co-Gen 4 Cal-Peak Vaca Dixon 49 Wolfskill Energy Cener 60 Lambie, Creed and Goosehaven 143 EnXco 60 Solano 100 High Winds 200 Shiloh 300 Bowman Power House 4 PG&E - Camp Far West (SMUD) 7 Central Valley Chicago Park Power House 40 Chili Bar Power House 7 Colgate Power House 294 Deer Creek Power House 6 Drum Power House 104 Dutch Plat Power House 49 El Dorado Power House 20 Feather River Energy Center 50 French Meadow Power House 17 Green Leaf No. -
Luminant 101 WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
Luminant 101 www.Luminant.com WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO Luminant is the largest competitive Luminant’s generating power generation company in Texas. capacity consists of a Our activities include power plant, diverse mix of plants. mining, wholesale marketing and trading, • Nuclear- and and development operations. coal-fueled plants generate the bulk • We have more than 15,400 megawatts of of the energy and existing electric generation in Texas, including generally operate 2,300 MW fueled by nuclear power and continuously at 8,000 MW fueled by coal. capacity. They are • Almost 2,200 MW of our coal fleet is new high performing in safety and efficiency. generation. • Natural gas units help meet variable consumption • We have restored more than 73,000 acres as because they can more readily be ramped up or part of our lignite coal mining operations and down as demand warrants. planted more than 33 million trees. • We are a leading purchaser of wind-generated Our Generating Capacity 1 electricity in Texas and the United States. Total: 15,427 MW • We are a subsidiary of Energy Future Nuclear Holdings Corp. EFH is a Dallas-based 15% Coal energy holding company. For more 52% information, visit www.Luminant.com or www.energyfutureholdings.com. Natural Gas 33% Our 2012 Energy Production2 Total: 70,490 GWh Nuclear 28% FORT WORTH DALLAS TYLER Natural Gas Coal MIDLAND 2% 70% ODESSA WACO LUFKIN BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION AUSTIN HOUSTON SAN ANTONIO 1 Includes four mothballed units (1,655 MW) not currently available for dispatch 2 Excludes purchased power Mines Power Plants Gas Coal Nuclear Updated March 2013 Luminant 101 Our mining operations supply a portion of the fuel for the coal-fueled generation plants from more than 1,000 million tons of owned or leased Texas lignite coal reserves. -
1 Photovoltaic Plus Storage
Photovoltaic plus Storage – Part 2, Projects By John Benson February 2019 1. Introduction Part 2 will describe recent major U.S. PV and storage projects and some new twists on residential PV plus storage. Part 1 of this paper (linked below) is on new technologies for utility-scale PV, utility-scale storage and PV plus storage systems, and the evolution of missions. https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/photovoltaic-plus-storage-%E2%80%93-part-1- technology 2. Projects The projects described below include PV plus storage, PV-only and storage only. 2.1. Arizona Public Service and First Solar A 65 megawatt (MW) project is making news by coupling PV with battery energy storage systems (BESS), a first for utility Arizona Public Service, which solicited proposals in 2017 for generation sources to provide electricity during peak demand hours.1 The solar-plus-storage bid beat out other generation sources, including multiple proposals for natural gas plants. The utility has an agreement with an existing natural gas-fired plant for a total of 570 MW for the summers of 2020 through 2026. A dramatic drop in the cost of BESS, driven in large part by an increase in lithium-ion battery production to satisfy growing demand for electric vehicles allows a PV + storage project to be competitive with gas peakers plus offer more capabilities. Storage is capable of providing services like frequency regulation, which maintains the grid’s electric frequency on a second-to-second basis, and reactive power support, which supports the voltage that must be controlled for grid reliability. -
Luminant a - Coastal Site
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CHAPTER 9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 9.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................... 9.0-1 9.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 9.1-1 9.1.1 IMPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF TAKING NO ACTION.................................. 9.1-1 9.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................... 9.2-1 9.2.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY ............... 9.2-1 9.2.1.1 Power Purchases ............................................................................................ 9.2-2 9.2.1.2 Plant Reactivation or Extended Service Life ................................................... 9.2-2 9.2.1.3 Conservation (Energy Efficiency) .................................................................... 9.2-3 9.2.1.4 Combination of Alternatives ............................................................................ 9.2-3 9.2.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY ........................ 9.2-4 9.2.2.1 Wind ................................................................................................................ 9.2-7 9.2.2.2 Solar Thermal Power and Photovoltaic Cells ................................................ 9.2-10 9.2.2.3 Hydropower.................................................................................................. -
Energy Future Holdings and Mining Reclamation Bonds in Texas (Pdf)
Energy Future Holdings and Mining Reclamation Bonds in Texas By Tom Sanzillo Director of Finance Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis A Report Prepared For: The Sierra Club Public Citizen Austin, Texas October, 2013 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Energy Future Holdings (EFH) Company is publicly reported to be on the brink of a major financial reorganization. The financial problems of EFH and its subsidiaries stem from an ill-conceived buyout of TXU Corporation (the predecessor company) by the EFH management. The debt incurred for the buyout far exceeded the ability of the assets to pay for it. The company has stated that its top priority is debt management and most of its actions appear to be concerned with payment of debt service. 1 Energy Future Competitive Holdings (EFCH) is a subsidiary of EFH, which in turn has various subsidiaries that create a complex corporate structure. EFCH subsidiary Luminant Mining Company LLC, using Luminant Generation, also known as GENCO, as a third party insurer, has utilized a provision in Texas law that allows for a third party entity to guarantee the performance bond of the mining company. Luminant Mining and Luminant Generation have made multiple applications for such proposals amounting to $1.01 billion in self-bonding authority. 2 This report presents the case that recent applications made by Luminant Mining, using Luminant Generation as a third party guarantor to the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) for self- bonding authority, creates a misleading impression regarding Luminant Generation’s financial condition. Luminant Mining and Luminant Generation are subsidiaries of EFCH and EFH. -
Declaration of Ken Smith, Vice President of Construction Management, Luminant Generation Company LLC
Case: 16-60118 Document: 00513405270 Page: 63 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Declaration of Ken Smith, Vice President of Construction Management, Luminant Generation Company LLC 60 Case: 16-60118 Document: 00513405270 Page: 64 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 DECLARATION OF KEN SMITH 1. I am vice president of construction management at Luminant, a competitive power generation subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corp. I will use “Luminant” in this declaration to refer to all Luminant entities that are petitioners in this matter. I make this declaration in support of Luminant’s motion to stay the Texas regional haze rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and Oklahoma; Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, 81 Fed. Reg. 296 (Jan. 5, 2016) (“Final Rule”). This declaration is based on my personal knowledge and opinions which I am qualified to provide based on my education, training, and extensive experience in the power generation industry as discussed below. 2. As discussed in more detail below, the Final Rule, if not stayed by the Court, will cause immediate and irreparable harm to Luminant. The Final Rule imposes a massive build-out requirement on the majority of Luminant’s coal-fueled electric generating units. The harm from the Final Rule includes unrecoverable costs and expenditures, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which Luminant would incur in the near term in order to begin work on the additional equipment and upgrades that EPA is requiring at Luminant’s generating units. -
Luminant 101 WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
Luminant 101 www.Luminant.com WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO Luminant is the largest competitive Luminant’s generating power generation company in Texas. capacity consists of a Our activities include power plant, diverse mix of plants. mining, wholesale marketing and trading, • Nuclear- and and development operations. coal-fueled plants generate the bulk • We have more than 13,700 megawatts of of the energy and existing electric generation in Texas, including generally operate 2,300 MW fueled by nuclear power and continuously at 8,000 MW fueled by coal. capacity. They are • Almost 2,200 MW of our coal fleet is new high performing in safety and efficiency. generation. • Natural gas units help meet variable consumption • We have restored more than 73,000 acres as because they can more readily be ramped up or part of our lignite coal mining operations and down as demand warrants. planted more than 33 million trees. • We are a leading purchaser of wind-generated Our Generating Capacity 1 electricity in Texas and the United States. Total: 15,427 MW • We are a subsidiary of Energy Future Nuclear Holdings Corp. EFH is a Dallas-based 15% Coal energy holding company. For more 52% information, visit www.Luminant.com or www.energyfutureholdings.com. Natural Gas 33% Our 2012 Energy Production2 Total: 70,490 GWh Nuclear 28% FORT WORTH DALLAS TYLER Natural Gas Coal MIDLAND 2% 70% ODESSA WACO LUFKIN BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION AUSTIN HOUSTON SAN ANTONIO 1 Includes four mothballed units (1,655 MW) not currently available for dispatch 2 Excludes purchased power Mines Power Plants Gas Coal Nuclear Updated July 2015 Luminant 101 Our mining operations supply a portion of the fuel for the coal-fueled generation plants from more than 1,000 million tons of owned or leased Texas lignite coal reserves. -
Appendix C to California’S Proposed Compliance Plan for the Federal Clean Power Plan: Target Recalculation Calculations
Appendix C to California’s Proposed Compliance Plan for the Federal Clean Power Plan: Target Recalculation Calculations Prime Nameplate Generator mover Capacity Summer ARB Updated List EPA Original Plant Name Operator Name ORIS Code ID Fuel type type (MW) Capacity (MW) EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Rollins Nevada Irrigation District 34 1P WAT HY 12.1 12.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Venice Metropolitan Water District 72 1 WAT HY 10.1 10.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE J S Eastwood Southern California Edison Co 104 1 WAT PS 199.8 199.8 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE McClure Modesto Irrigation District 151 1 DFO GT 71.2 56.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE McClure Modesto Irrigation District 151 2 DFO GT 71.2 56.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 1 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 2 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 3 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Hickman Turlock Irrigation District 162 1 WAT HY 0.5 0.5 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Hickman Turlock Irrigation District 162 2 WAT HY 0.5 0.5 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Volta 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 180 1 WAT HY 1.0 0.9 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Alta Powerhouse Pacific Gas & Electric Co 214 1 WAT HY 1.0 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Alta Powerhouse Pacific Gas & Electric Co 214 2 WAT HY 1.0 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Angels Utica Power Authority 215 1 WAT HY 1.4 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 1 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 217 1 WAT HY 31.0 31.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 218 2 WAT HY 48.6 52.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 218 3 WAT HY 48.6 55.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE -
Energy White Paper Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use
Energy White Paper Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use City of Santa Cruz & Soquel Creek Water District scwd2 Desalination Program Prepared by: April 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ iv List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... iv Section 1: Executive Summary and Background ......................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Background .......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Current Water Supply Portfolios ............................................................ 2 1.3.1 SCWD Water Supply Portfolio ................................................... 2 1.3.2 SqCWD Water Supply Portfolio ................................................. 3 Section 2: Energy and Our Current Water Supply ........................................ 4 2.1 What is Energy? ................................................................................... 4 2.2 Our Society is Fundamentally Reliant on Energy -
News Release for IMMEDIATE RELEASE
News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Luminant Announces Facility Closures, Job Reductions in Response to EPA Rule Company Forced to Take Difficult Steps; Files Suit to Protect Jobs, Reliability DALLAS – September 12, 2011 – In employee meetings today across its Texas operations, Luminant leadership announced the need to close facilities to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which will cause the loss of approximately 500 jobs. The rule, which the EPA released earlier this summer, requires Texas power generators to make dramatic reductions in emissions beginning January 1, 2012. While Luminant is making preparations to meet the rule’s compliance deadline, this morning it also filed a legal challenge in an effort to protect facilities and employees, and to minimize the harm this rule will cause to electric reliability in Texas. To meet the rule’s unrealistic deadline and requirements, Luminant reluctantly must take the difficult steps of idling two generating units and ceasing mining Texas lignite at three mines. Luminant will also implement several other actions to reduce emissions, including making substantial investments in its facilities. Luminant supports continued efforts to improve air quality across the state and nation. Since 2005, for example, Luminant has achieved a 21 percent reduction in SO2 emissions, while at the same time increasing generation by 13 percent. CEO Statement “As always, Luminant is committed to complying fully with EPA regulations. We have spent the last two months identifying all possible options to meet the requirements of this new rule, and we are launching a significant investment program to reduce emissions across our facilities,” said David Campbell, Luminant’s chief executive officer. -
California ISO Planning Standards
FILED 03/27/19 04:59 PM A1903026 California ISO Planning Standards June 23, 2011 1 1 / 226 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. ISO Planning Standards 1. Applicability of NERC Reliability Standards to Low Voltage Facilities under ISO Operational Control 2. Combined Line and Generator Outage Standard 3. Voltage Standard 4. Specific Nuclear Unit Standards 5. Loss of Combined Cycle Power Plant Module as a Single Generator Outage 6. Planning for New Transmission versus Involuntary Load Interruption Standard III. ISO Planning Guidelines 1. New Special Protection Systems IV. Combined Line and Generator Unit Outage Standards Supporting Information V. Loss of Combined Cycle Power Plant Module as a Single Generator Outage Standard Supporting Information VI. Background behind Planning for New Transmission versus Involuntary Load Interruption Standard VII. Interpretations of Terms from the NERC Reliability Standards and WECC Regional Criteria 2 2 / 226 I. Introduction The California ISO (ISO) tariff provides for the establishment of planning guidelines and standards above those established by NERC and WECC to ensure the secure and reliable operation of the ISO controlled grid. The primary guiding principle of these Planning Standards is to develop consistent reliability standards for the ISO grid that will maintain or improve transmission system reliability to a level appropriate for the California system. These ISO Planning Standards are not intended to duplicate the NERC and WECC reliability standards, but to complement them where it is in the best interests of the security and reliability of the ISO controlled grid. The ISO planning standards will be revised from time to time to ensure they are consistent with the current state of the electrical industry and in conformance with NERC Reliability Standards and WECC Regional Criteria.