DOCSLIB.ORG

Application by Transcanada Pipelines for Approval of Restructuring and Mainline Final Tolls for 2012 and 2013 Before National Energy Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Application by Transcanada Pipelines for Approval of Restructuring and Mainline Final Tolls for 2012 and 2013 Before National Energy Board Application by TransCanada Pipelines for Approval of Restructuring and Mainline Final Tolls for 2012 and 2013 before National Energy Board RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik P. Eng. MBA on behalf of the Association of Power Producers of Ontario (“APPrO”) March 9, 2012 Elenchus Research Associates Suite 610 34 King St. East Toronto, ON, M5C 2X8 RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik On behalf of APPrO Page 1 of 9 1. Purpose of This Evidence This evidence is being submitted by John Wolnik on behalf of APPrO in the TransCanada Mainline 2012 and 2013 NEB RH-3-2011 application. The purpose of this evidence is to provide information illustrating the financial impact of higher Mainline tolls on gas-fired generators over the last several years. 2. Natural Gas Fired Generation in Ontario A number of APPrO's gas-fired generator members are non-utility generators (“NUG”s). These plants were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This group of NUG generators represents approximately 1,260 MW of gas-fired generating capacity, located in Southern, Eastern and Northern Ontario. Most of these NUGs have or had long term, long-haul, firm transportation (“FT”) contracts on the Mainline to supply their facilities either directly or indirectly. More recently the Province of Ontario embarked on a program to close its coal-fired generating facilities. Some of this coal-fired generation capacity has been replaced with gas-fired generation. A total of 4,154 MW1 of Clean Energy Supply (“CES”) simple and combined cycle gas-fired generation capacity has been developed. A further 966 MW2 of gas-fired combined heat and power generation has been developed. A further 393 MW of gas-fired generation is in the commissioning process at this time and is expected to be in commercial operation in the spring of 20123. These CES generators include simple and combined cycle plants as well as combined heat and power plants. For all intents and purposes, these NUG and CES gas-fired generators situated outside the Union South franchise area are captive to the Mainline for delivering natural gas supply to their plants. Gas-fired generators rely heavily on both long-haul 1 A Progress Report on Electricity Supply Third Quarter 2011; Ontario Power Authority, page 23. (Excludes OPG’s Lennox Generation Station which is an additional 2,140 MW of dual fuel (gas/oil) capability.) 2 Ibid, page 24 3 http://www.vereseninc.com/upload/presentation/93/01/veresen-presentation---january-2012.pdf RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik On behalf of APPrO Page 2 of 9 and short-haul transportation on the Mainline system. Some of the generators have been willing to enter into long-term contractual arrangements for their Mainline transportation requirements, in some cases for primary terms up to 20 years. The OPA also has 7,928 MW4 of renewable energy under contract from wind, solar and bioenergy sources as of the end of the third quarter 2011. Some of these renewable sources of generation are intermittent and gas-fired generation provides alternate generation for the Province when this renewable power is not fully available. 3. Mainline Transportation Contracts held by Generators Most of the NUGs have or had long term, long-haul FT contracts on the Mainline to supply their respective facilities and source supply from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). In most cases these plants are self-dispatching and operate at relatively high capacity factors resulting in high load factor utilization of their respective FT Mainline contracts. Most of the CES generators on the other hand are fully dispatchable and are generally dispatched after the provincial demand exceeds the combination of baseload generation, renewable generation or other forms of non-dispatchable power generation. As a result, natural gas loads at these plants are much more variable and operate at lower capacity factors than the NUGs. Their load factor utilization of the upstream FT or FT-SN contracts reflects the dispatchability of the plants. The power purchase arrangements in these cases are with the Ontario Power Authority (“OPA”). In these cases the fuel costs were required to be based on a Dawn index price. These generators naturally contracted for transportation capacity for their plants from Dawn. Their plants are dispatchable and are required to start up on short notice and they may also be required to shut down on short notice. These operating parameters require them to have balancing arrangements to manage the 4 A Progress Report on Electricity Supply Third Quarter 2011; Ontario Power Authority, page 6 RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik On behalf of APPrO Page 3 of 9 variability in natural gas supply throughout the day, and day-to-day, and Dawn is the only point in Ontario where physical natural gas storage is available. Those generators outside of Union Gas Ltd.’s (“Union”) South franchise area contracted long term with the Mainline for short-haul transportation arrangements. Most of the larger CES generators outside the Union South franchise use the Mainline's Firm Transport Short-Notice (FT-SN) transportation service. Schedule 1 illustrates the listing of generators and their respective FT and FT-SN contracts on the Mainline since 2006. As illustrated in Schedule 1, some generators have chosen not to renew all or a part of their long term FT arrangements. While specific reasons as to why individual generators did not renew their FT contracts are not known, high Mainline tolls experienced in the last several years are most certainly a contributing factor. Overall generators as a group have increased the amount of FT and FT-SN capacity under contract to the Mainline since 2006 from 176,267 GJ/d to 486,336 GJ/d in 20125. This represents an increase of 175% of the FT and FT-SN capacity by generators under contract over this period. 4. Mainline Toll Increases The long-haul Eastern Zone toll is often looked at as a benchmark toll for the Mainline. Since other Mainline tolls are set in a similar fashion, the percentage change to the Eastern Zone toll is often used as a proxy for other Mainline toll changes. Figure 1 illustrates how the Eastern Zone toll has changed since 1995. For the period between 1995 and 2006, this toll was relatively stable and averaged approximately $1.02/GJ. Since 2006 to the current period, this toll has increased by 127%. Other long-haul and short-haul tolls would have experienced similar dramatic toll changes over the last 5 years. 5 Schedule 1 6 TransCanadaTollArchive generators havebeenselectedas illustrativeex order todemonstratethis burden thatageneratororanyendusecustom percentage changeintolls.Howeverthis When examiningannualtollchanges,itis 5. Financial ImpacttoGenerators $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $ ‐ May‐95 Oct‐95 TransCanada Mar‐96 Aug‐96 Jan‐97 Figure 1 Mainline Eastern Zone 100% LFTolls Figure 1MainlineEasternZone100% Jun‐97 Nov‐97 Apr‐98 Sep‐98 Mainline Feb‐99 financial impactfromhigherMainlinetolls, twoindividual Jul‐99 Dec‐99 May‐00 Oct‐00 Mar‐01 100% Aug‐01 Jan‐02 Load analysisdoes notquantifytheannualcost Jun‐02 helpful tounderstandtheyear Nov‐02 Apr‐03 Sep‐03 Factor er isexposedtofromrisingtolls.In amples foramoredetailedanalysis. Feb‐04 Jul‐04 Dec‐04 Eastern May‐05 Oct‐05 Mar‐06 Aug‐06 127 % Increase Jan‐07 Zone Jun‐07 6 Nov‐07 Evidence ofJohn Wolnik Apr‐08 Toll Sep‐08 On behalf ofAPPrO Feb‐09 ($/GJ) Jul‐09 Dec‐09 Page 4of9 RH-3-2011 RH-3-2011 May‐10 Oct‐10 Mar‐11 Aug‐11 Jan‐12 RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik On behalf of APPrO Page 5 of 9 As described earlier, generators generally fall into NUG and CES categories, Cardinal Power (Cardinal) was selected as the illustrative NUG generator, and Goreway Power Station (Goreway) as the illustrative CES generator. Cardinal operates a 156 MW7 combined cycle cogeneration plant that sells steam to a nearby industrial customer. It is located in Cardinal, Ontario which is situated approximately 100 km east of Kingston on the St. Lawrence River. It commenced commercial operation in November 1994 and continues its operation utilizing a 20 year FT transportation arrangement with the Mainline. Cardinal does not directly hold the long-haul FT contract in its own name but rather the FT contract (# 5106) that Cardinal relies on to transport its fuel supply was originally entered into by Cardinal and was subsequently assigned to Husky Energy (“Husky”). Cardinal continues to be commercially responsible to Husky for the Mainline FT charges thereunder. As shown in Schedule 1, the Contract Demand (“CD”) of this FT contract is 33,563 GJ/d. The annual transportation costs can be determined by multiplying the effective monthly demand charge8 by the number of months the toll was in effect and then by the CD (from Schedule 1). The commodity charge associated with the FT and FT- SN contracts was not included in the annual cost calculations as the actual load factor these plants operate at each year can vary somewhat year to year which could create small distortions in the analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the dramatic increase in Cardinal’s annual demand charge costs for their FT contract since 2006. The annual demand charges have increased from just under $11 million in 2006 to an annual cost of almost $25 million in 2011, an increase of almost $14 million or approximately 128%, over the last several years. 7 http://www.capstoneinfrastructure.com/Assets/FinancialReports/FactSheets/Cardinal%20Power%20Fact%20Sheet% 20Final%202_991068_1%20(ISF_Toronto).PDF 8 http://www.transcanada.com/customerexpress/mainline.html RH-3-2011 Evidence of John Wolnik On behalf of APPrO Page 6 of 9 The 2011 toll is currently still in effect on an interim basis for 2012 so Cardinal continues to pay these elevated demand charges on a monthly basis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phasing out Coal
    AN OCAA AIR QUALITY REPORT | www.cleanairalliance.org Phasing Out Coal: 2006 Progress Report Ontario Clean Air Alliance NOVEMBER 9, 2006 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Ontario’s progress to-date in achieving a complete coal phase-out by 2009 .. 3 Calculating Ontario’s coal-free electricity resources in 2009 ...................... 3 Ontario’s Coal-free Electricity Resources from 2010 to 2012 .................... 4 Ontario’s Summer Peak Required Electricity Resources: 2009 to 2012 ...... 5 Coal Phase-Out Gap: 2009 – 2012 ............................................................ 5 Keeping the Coal Phase-Out by 2009 Promise .............................................. 6 Thunder Bay Conversion ........................................................................... 6 Nanticoke Conversion ................................................................................ 6 Alternative Options .................................................................................... 7 Looking ahead .............................................................................................. 7 Endnotes ....................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A: OCAA Members ...................................................................... 9 The Ontario Clean Air Alliance is a coalition of health, environmental, and consumer organizations, faith communities, municipalities, utilities,
    [Show full text]
  • EB-2012-0451/EB-2012-0433/EB-2013-0074 Exhibit M.IESO.GEC.1 Page 1 of 1
    EB-2012-0451/EB-2012-0433/EB-2013-0074 Exhibit M.IESO.GEC.1 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT ELECTRICITY SYSTEM OPERATOR RESPONSE TO GREEN ENERGY COALITION INTERROGATORY #1 INTERROGATORY Issue A.1. Reference IESO Letter, June 28, 2013 Questions Please identify the witnesses who will sponsor the evidence, and explain their relationship to the documents in the Appendices to the letter (e.g., author, familiar with the development of the document, no relationship) RESPONSE The IESO witnesses are: Dan Rochester, Manager – Reliability Assessments. Mr. Rochester’s relationship with the documents in the Appendices to the letter is as follows: o Appendix 1 – limited review and limited familiarity with the content o Appendices 2 and 6 – no relationship o Appendices 3 to 5 - author David Robitaille, Manager – Operational Effectiveness. Mr. Robitaille’s relationship with the documents in the Appendices to the letter is as follows: o Appendix 1, 2 and 6 – no relationship o Appendices 3 to 5 – familiar with the content EB-2012-0451/EB-2012-0433/EB-2013-0074 Exhibit M.IESO.GEC.2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT ELECTRICITY SYSTEM OPERATOR RESPONSE TO GREEN ENERGY COALITION INTERROGATORY #2 INTERROGATORY Issue A.1. Reference IESO Letter, June 28, 2013 Questions Please provide the equivalent of Table 1 for “Capability at Winter Peak.” RESPONSE The Forecast Capability at 2013/2014 Winter Peak is included and provided in the last column of the table below: Total Forecast Change in Forecast Installed Capability at Number Installed Change in Capability at Fuel Type Capacity
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario
    GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS METHODS OF POWER GENERATION IN ONTARIO October 2016 Prepared For: Ontario Power Generation Inc. 700 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z5 6605 Hurontario Street , Suite 500, Mississauga, Ontario ▪ L5T 0A3 Tel: 905-364-7800 ▪ Fax: 905-364-7816 ▪ www.intrinsik.com DISCLAIMER Intrinsik Corp. (hereafter referred to as Intrinsik) provided this report to Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) solely for the purpose stated in the report. Intrinsik does not accept any responsibility for the use of this report for any purpose other than as specifically intended by OPG. Intrinsik does not have, and does not accept, any responsibility or duty of care whether based in negligence or otherwise, in relation to the use of this report in whole or in part by any third party. Any alternate use, including that by a third party, or any reliance on or decision made based on this report, are the sole responsibility of the alternative user or third party. Intrinsik does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Intrinsik makes no representation, warranty or condition with respect to this report or the information contained herein other than that it has exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in accordance with accepted practice and usual standards of thoroughness and competence for the profession of toxicology and environmental science to assess and evaluate information acquired during the preparation of this report. Any information or facts provided by others, and referred to or utilized in the preparation of this report, is believed to be accurate without any independent verification or confirmation by Intrinsik.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.05 Electricity Power System Planning
    Chapter 3 Ministry of Energy Section 3.05 Electricity Power System Planning 1.0 Background 1.2 Key Players Involved The entities involved in power system planning in Ontario include the Ministry of Energy (Ministry), 1.1 What Is Electricity Power the Independent Electricity System Operator System Planning? (IESO), the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), Ontario Electricity power system planning involves man- Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One, a major aging the long-term demand for electricity and transmitter and distributor (see Section 3.06 of deciding how to meet that demand through vari- this year’s Annual Report for our audit of Hydro ous generation, conservation and transmission One’s Management of Electricity Transmission solutions: and Distribution Assets), four other small licenced Generation—Ontario has a diverse mix of transmitters and approximately 70 local distribu- Chapter 3 • VFM Section 3.05 • energy sources (called the “supply mix”) tion companies. Figure 1 shows the key roles and including nuclear, hydropower, natural gas, responsibilities of each. wind, solar and bioenergy. The Ministry and the IESO are the key players in • Conservation—Ontario encourages consum- power system planning at the provincial level. Their ers to reduce or shift consumption away from plans aim to ensure adequate supply, bulk transmis- peak times and to use energy more efficiently, sion planning and interaction with local distribu- with the intent to avoid the need for increased tion companies. Under the Electricity Act, 1998, the electricity generation and to avoid or defer the Minister has the authority to issue directives (which need for significant investment in new electri- require cabinet approval) on the supply mix, and city infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Annual Report Materials Used in This Report Are Environmentally Friendly
    This annual report is also available in French on our Web site – ce rapport est également publié en français – at www.opg.com Generation Power Ontario Please recycle. The head office of Ontario Power Generation Inc. is located at 700 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6; telephone (416) 592-2555 or (877) 592-2555. Materials used in this report are environmentally friendly. Cover and text stocks are recycled and recyclable, with a minimum of 10% post-consumer waste. Vegetable-based inks have been used throughout. 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Pictured on the Front Cover Darlington planned outage, Spring 2006; Co-Op Student, Lambton Generating Station; Authorized Nuclear Operators, Pickering B; Employee, OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility; OPG employees, Cameron Falls hydroelectric generating station It’s All About Performance 2006 Annual Report 9881_OPG_cover_final.indd 1-2 5/30/07 1:20:09 PM Revenue, Net of Revenue Limit Electricity Production In-Service Generating Capacity Ontario Power Generation Facilities and Market Power Mitigation (TWh) December 31, 2006 Agreement Rebates 22,147 MW (millions of dollars) Regulated – Nuclear Regulated – Nuclear Regulated – Nuclear Regulated – Hydroelectric Regulated – Hydroelectric Regulated – Hydroelectric Unregulated – Hydroelectric Unregulated – Hydroelectric Unregulated – Hydroelectric Unregulated – Fossil-Fuelled Unregulated – Fossil-Fuelled Unregulated – Fossil-Fuelled Other Other 5,798 108.5 5,564 105.2 7 MW 2,447 45.0 2,665 46.9 6,606 MW 30% 8,578 MW 39% 792 18.5 685 18.3 3,332 MW 732 14.1 3,624 MW 736 15.0 15% 1,741 16% 30.9 1,313 25.0 Moosonee 165 86 06 05 06 05 Financial Highlights Kenora Years Ended December 31 Timmins Atikokan Thunder Bay (millions of dollars) 2006 2005 Earnings Revenue after revenue limit and Market Power Mitigation Agreement rebates 5,564 5,798 Fuel expense 1,098 1,297 Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Observational Constraints on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases in the Greater Toronto Area
    Observational constraints on air quality and greenhouse gases in the Greater Toronto Area by Stephanie C. Pugliese A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Chemistry University of Toronto © Copyright by Stephanie C. Pugliese (2017) Observational constraints on air quality and greenhouse gases in the Greater Toronto Area Stephanie C. Pugliese Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Chemistry University of Toronto 2017 Abstract Urban areas are highly complex environments that are large sources of a variety of atmospheric pollutants. To better understand the spatial and temporal variability of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the GTA, we developed the Southern Ontario CO2 Emissions (SOCE) inventory, a fine resolution inventory based on emissions from seven source sectors for the year 2010. When the SOCE inventory was used in combination with a chemistry transport model, agreement with mixing ratios measured in southern Ontario was strong. We found that contributions from area sources (primarily natural gas combustion) played a dominant role overnight (contributing >80 %) while on-road sources played a significant role during the day (contributing >70 %). 13 When a fine-resolution CO2 inventory is not available, stable carbon isotopes (δ CO2) are often used as tools to source apportion CO2. We combined model output CO2 mixing ratios with GTA- 13 specific δ CO2 signatures of the dominant anthropogenic sources of CO2, determined as part of 13 13 this work, to simulate hourly δ CO2. When the simulated δ CO2 was compared to measurements at the Downsview site, the agreement was generally good. To evaluate the use of Keeling and 13 chemical mass balance (CMB) analyses, we estimated the δ CO2 signature of the local ii enhancement from both model output and measurements and found that it was heavier (~3 per mil) than that calculated by the SOCE inventory.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Assessment of Water Use and Greenhouse Gas Footprints of Canada’S Electricity Generation and Oil and Gas Sectors
    Integrated assessment of water use and greenhouse gas footprints of Canada’s electricity generation and oil and gas sectors by Ankit Gupta A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Management Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta © Ankit Gupta, 2020 Abstract The energy sector is responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions, water withdrawal, and water consumption. There are strong dependences between energy production and water use, and the adoption of more clean energy production technologies will affect water use. Such technological changes are not well understood. There is very little research assessing the water use associated with clean energy pathways in the energy sector. The objective of this research is to understand and evaluate the water-use impacts of Canada’s renewable energy transition. This research developed an integrated energy-water model to assess clean energy scenarios and the resulting technology penetration, water use, and cumulative and marginal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions abatement costs. The energy sectors considered in this work are the oil and gas sector and the electricity generation sector. The Canadian Water Evaluation and Planning model (WEAP-Canada) was developed and integrated with the Long-range Energy Alternative Planning (LEAP-Canada) system model to determine integrated water-greenhouse gas footprints for the electricity generation sector and the oil and gas sector for the years 2005-2050. This research develops integrated water-greenhouse gas footprints for future electricity generation mix pathways in Canada with a focus on deep decarbonization. The LEAP model of Canada’s electricity system was developed by using technology system capacity requirements, technology capacity addition, and technology and economic inputs to provide electricity generation technology capacities and generation, system costs, and GHG emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Background on Natural Gas Storage
    AIRD BERLIS Fred D. Cass Direct: 416.865.7742 E-mail: [email protected] April 19, 2018 Kirsten Walli Board Secretary Ontario Energy Board 2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2700 Toronto ON M4P 1E4 Dear Ms Walli: Re: EB-2017-0306/EB-2017-0307; MAADs Application by Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc, and Union Gas Limited_________________________________ In accordance with Procedural Order No. 5 issued by the Board in EB-2017-0306/EB- 2017-0307, we have enclosed the Submissions of the Applicants on the Motion by the School Energy Coalition. We have also enclosed redacted versions of the three Reports referred to in the Submissions. If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, AIRD & j3ERLIS LLP / / Fred D. Cass Ends. Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800, Toronto, Canada MSJ 2T9 r 416.863.1500 r: 416,863.1515 ! airdberlis.com EB-2017-0306 EB-2017-0307 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, 3.0. 1998, c.15 (Sched. B); AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and Union Gas Limited, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, for an order or orders granting leave to amalgamate as of January 1, 2019; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and Union Gas Limited, pursuant to section 36 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, for an order or orders approving a rate setting mechanism and associated parameters during the deferred rebasing period, effective January 1, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Gas-Electric Market Alignment in Ontario
    Investigating Gas-Electric Market Alignment in Ontario Final Report Prepared for IESO October 2016 Investigating Gas-Electric Market Alignment October 2016 IESO Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Approach ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Alignment of Gas and Power Markets in North America ................................................................................... 6 FERC Order 809 ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Responses to FERC 809 by IESO’s Neighbouring Jurisdictions .................................................................... 9 North American Gas Market ................................................................................................................................... 14 Natural Gas Infrastructure in Ontario .............................................................................................................. 14 Transaction Alignment within the Natural Gas Market ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Supplemental For: High-Resolution Quantification of Atmospheric CO2
    Supplemental for: High-resolution quantification of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios in Greater Toronto Area, Canada Stephanie C. Pugliese1, Jennifer G. Murphy1*, Felix R. Vogel2,4, Michael D. Moran3, Junhua Zhang3, Qiong Zheng3, Craig A. Stroud3, Shuzhan Ren3, Douglas Worthy4, Gregoire Broquet2 1 University of Toronto, Department of Chemistry, 80 St. George St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3H6 2 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de L’Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université de Paris- Saclay, France 3 Environment Canada, Air Quality Research Division, 4905 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON, Canada M3H 5T4 4 Environment Canada, Climate Research Division, 4905 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON, Canada M3H 5T4 *Correspondence author. Email address: [email protected] (J.G. Murphy) 1 Table S1: Facility-specific CO2:CO for the Point sector CO2 CO CO2:CO Name (kt) (kt) (kt CO2/kt CO) Brighton Beach 233.3 0.28 842 Bruce Power 69.0 0.03 2091 Cardinal Power 562.1 0.06 9527 Cochrane Generating Station 1113.3 0.34 3323 East Windsor Cogeneration Center 124.3 0.05 2345 Essar Power Canada ltd. 1502.4 0.48 3137 Goreway Power Station 1209.8 0.72 1680 Greenfield Energy Center 937.9 2.18 431 Halton Hills Generating Station 397.0 0.07 5839 Iroquois Falls Generating Station 321.0 0.07 4864 Kapuskasing Power Plant 136.6 0.03 4268 Kingston Cogen 332.0 0.05 6775 Kirkland Lake Generating Station 321.9 0.63 513 Lake Superior Power 203.1 0.06 3692 Lambton Generating Station 3289.9 1.41 2337 Lennox Generating Station 120.1 0.07 1819 Mississauga Cogeneration Plant 363.8 0.13 2756 Nanticoke Generating Station 8544.1 3.40 2513 North Bay 133.5 0.03 4170 Ottawa Health Sciences Center Cogeneration Facility 220.0 0.07 3013 Plasco Trail Road 3.2 0.02 154 Portlands Energy Centre 457.3 0.34 1333 Sarnia Cogen Plant 362.4 0.22 1618 Sarnia Regional Cogeneration Facility 1194.2 0.40 2971 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Wholesale Electricity Market Price Forecast
    Ontario Wholesale Electricity Market Price Forecast For the Period May 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015 Presented to Ontario Energy Board April 10, 2014 Navigant Consulting Ltd. 333 Bay Street, Suite 1250 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2R2 www.navigant.com NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY Copyright This report is protected by copyright. Any copying, reproduction, performance or publication in any form outside the client organization without the express written consent of Navigant Consulting Inc. is prohibited. No Warranties or Representations Some of the assumptions used in the preparation of this wholesale electricity market price forecast, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, inevitably will not materialize as forecasted as unanticipated events and circumstances occur subsequent to the date of the forecast. Accordingly, actual electricity market prices will vary from the electricity market price forecast and the variations may be material. There is no representation that our Ontario electricity market price forecast will be realized. Important factors that could cause actual electricity market prices to vary from the forecast are disclosed throughout the report. Notice of Confidentiality EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Navigant Consulting Ltd. (Navigant) was retained by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB or the Board) to provide an independent market price forecast for the Ontario wholesale electricity market. This wholesale electricity price forecast will be used, as one of a number of inputs, to set the price for eligible consumers under the Regulated Price Plan (RPP). Navigant used a statistical model of the Ontario electricity market to develop our hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) forecast. Navigant’s Ontario model draws on our Ontario database, which reflects the Ontario hourly load shape, all committed new entrant generation, best available information regarding the operating profile of Ontario’s hydroelectric generation (baseload and peaking resources), and operating characteristics and fuel prices for Ontario’s thermal generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2 Cover
    Analysis and Scenario Modelling REPORT of the Ontario Power System 2 Marc Godin Portfire Associates July 2007 In partnership with: Emerging Energy Options WADE Canada Analysis and Scenario Modelling of the Ontario Power System Marc Godin Portfire Associates July 2007 In partnership with: Emerging Energy Options WADE Canada July 12, 2007 1 Renewable is Doable: A Smarter Energy Plan for Ontario: Reports 1 and 2 Renewable is Doable is a joint study by WWF-Canada and the Pembina Institute to identify electricity scenarios for Ontario that would meet future power demands without the use of nuclear power and coal, and that would generate lower greenhouse gas emissions than the plan currently proposed by the Ontario Power Authority. The study consists of two background reports: Report #1: Analysis of Resource Potential and Scenario Assumptions, written by the Pembina Institute, presents a review of the technical and practical potential and cost of electricity supply and conservation measures for the province of Ontario. It includes an analysis and review of renewable energy sources, and the potential impact of conservation and demand management measures. Report #2: Analysis and Scenario Modelling of the Ontario Power System, written by Marc Godin of Portfire Associates for WWF-Canada uses this information from the first report to model three electricity futures for Ontario—two green scenarios and the Ontario Power Authority’s preliminary plan—using a computer model developed by the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE). The model uses data from the Ontario Power Authority and cross- references it with comparable energy efficiency and renewable energy project performance in the U.S.
    [Show full text]