83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects Pursuant to Section 83C of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 1 of 210 Final Report 83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report Long-term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects Pursuant to Section 83C of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008 Prepared for: Eversource Energy National Grid Unitil Corporation February 7, 2020 Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich 75 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02166 (617) 871-6900 www.tcr-us.com D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 2 of 210 DISCLAIMER 83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report has been prepared by Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich, INC (TCR) for the Massachusetts Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs), Eversource Energy, National Grid US and Unitil for the sole purpose of providing the quantitative analyses to allow the EDCs to evaluate the proposals that they receive in response to the 83C Part II RFPs. The information provided herein deals with the analysis, methodology and results of the proposal quantitative evaluations. Any other use of the materials without the explicit permission of the EDCs is strictly prohibited. D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 3 of 210 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1. Summary and Overview ................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2. Evaluation Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1: Analytical Approaches to Quantitative Evaluation of Proposal Cases ........................................... 5 2.2: Metrics Used in Quantitative Evaluation of Proposal Cases ............................................................. 5 2.2.1: Direct Costs and Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2: Indirect Costs and Benefits................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.3: Net Benefit (Cost) .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.4: Quantitative Workbooks...................................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3. Market Simulations – 83C II Base Case and Proposal Cases .................................................. 9 3.1: 83C II Base Case and 83C II Proposal Cases ......................................................................................... 9 3.2: ENELYTIX Simulation Model .................................................................................................................... 9 3.3: Major Input Assumptions Used to Model 83C II Base and Proposal Cases ................................. 10 3.3.1: Modeling Input Assumption Categories with differences between the 83C II Base Case and each Proposal Case .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.2: Modeling Input Assumption Categories with no differences between the 83C II Base Case and each Proposal Case ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Section 4. Proposal Evaluation – Quantitative Workbook ....................................................................... 15 4.1: GHG Inventory Worksheet ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2: Proposal Metrics Worksheet .................................................................................................................. 16 Section 5. Scoring and Ranking of Proposal Cases ................................................................................... 17 Stage Two Proposal Scores and Ranking ....................................................................................... 18 Protocol for 83C II Quantitative Metric Calculations, Stage 2 ................................................... 20 83C II Base Case Results .................................................................................................................... 23 83C II Base Case Assumptions and Description of ENELYTIX simulation model ................ 24 D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 4 of 210 Section 1. Summary and Overview The Massachusetts (“MA”) electric distribution companies (“EDCs”) issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) on May 23rd2019 for long term contracts from offshore wind energy projects. The EDCs solicited bids (“Proposals”) for projects (“Projects”) providing such supplies of wind energy and renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) to comply with Section 83C of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act. This RFP (“83C Round II” or “83C II”) is the second round of the multi-phase procurement totaling 1,600 megawatts (“MW”) of offshore wind. The first round of this procurement (“83C I”) resulted in the Massachusetts EDCs entering into long term contracts for 800 MW offshore wind through a similar RFP process initiated in June 2017. The Massachusetts EDCs selected Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich (“TCR”) as Evaluation Team Consultant to help them evaluate certain costs and benefits1 of the proposals received in response to the RFP. This report summarizes the analyses TCR prepared to evaluate such costs and benefits, and the results of those evaluations. The 83C II RFP required bidders to submit proposals for at least 400 MW of generation capacity with two pricing options. The first option was a generator lead line (“GLL”) proposal that would include the delivery infrastructure required to support the bid generation capacity; the second pricing option was a similar GLL proposal with a Commitment Agreement (“CA”) which is a commitment for the bidders to negotiate in good faith and use commercially reasonable efforts to enter into a voluntary agreement with third-party developers regarding interconnection to and future expansion of the delivery infrastructure. The 83C II RFP also gave bidders the option of submitting proposals of no less than 200 MW and no greater than 800 MW2. However, each optional proposal also had to include both a GLL pricing and a CA pricing option. The 83C II RFP Evaluation Team reviewed and evaluated the Project bids using a process described in testimony sponsored by the EDCs in this proceeding. As part of this process, TCR performed the Stage Two Quantitative Analysis of each Proposal as well as certain discrete analyses requested by the Evaluation Team at various points in the evaluation. TCR performed these analyses by creating a scenario or “case” for each Proposal (“Proposal Case”) and a common “counterfactual” case (“83C II Base Case”) which provides projections under a future in which the EDCs do not acquire wind energy under long-term contracts from any of the Proposals received in response to the 83C II RFP. TCR evaluated the costs and benefits of each Proposal Case using inputs from that Proposal and results from modeling the operation of the New England and New York energy markets3 assuming the specific Proposal being modeled is chosen, as well as results from the modeling of the 83C II Base Case. 1 The costs and benefits TCR analyzed were a subset of the overall costs and benefits associated with the 83C II RFP bids. Costs and benefits considered less amenable to quantification were analyzed in the Qualitative Analysis portions of the evaluation process. In this report, we use “costs and benefits” and similar terms to refer to the subset of costs and benefits TCR quantified using its tools and methods. 2 Bidders were allowed to propose minor variations in proposed contract size based on expected turbine size and potential changes to expected turbine size. 3 TCR uses a simplified approach to modeling the New York system and does not use the ENELYTIX capacity expansion module to simulate capacity expansion, RPS compliance or emission targets for the New York ISO footprint. Please refer to appendix D for details on modeling assumptions for New England and New York markets. D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 5 of 210 Based on the results of these Stage Two analyses, the Evaluation Team determined that it was not necessary to conduct Portfolio Stage Three Model runs. However, during the Stage Three analysis, TCR ran two sensitivity cases on the Stage Two top-ranked Proposal to assess the impact of the winter fuel switch mechanism on the calculated quantitative metrics4. The two sensitivity cases offer a set of alternative projections and metrics under scenarios having no fuel switches (Sensitivity 1 – winter fuel switch disabled) and lower fuel switches (Sensitivity 2 – retirement date of Millstone 2 is assumed to be delayed to 2045). The results of these sensitivity cases confirmed the correct implementation of the fuel switch mechanism and that the impact on quantitative metrics was reasonable. For further discussion and results of the sensitivity cases please see the Addendum to the 83C II Quantitative Metric Calculations, attached as Appendix B-2. Appendix A summarizes the results of TCR’s Stage Two Quantitative Analyses of each Proposal Case, the quantitative