september 26, 2007
DESCRIPTION
Kansas Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Conference Wind 2007 RFP Update John Grimwade - Sr. Director Strategic Planning and Development. September 26, 2007. About KCP&L. KCP&L’s Comprehensive Energy Plan provides a balanced approach to meeting the region’s energy needs. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Kansas Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Conference
Wind 2007 RFP Update
John Grimwade - Sr. Director Strategic Planning and Development
September 26, 2007
Page 2
About KCP&L
Page 3
KCP&L’s Comprehensive Energy Plan provides a balanced approach to meeting the region’s energy needs
Page 4
Spearville Wind Energy facility
Page 5
Comprehensive Energy Plan – Renewable Energy Additions
KCP&L’s original plan had targeted for 200 MW of wind additions by the 2008 timeframe
Through the collaborative workshops this amount was reduced in the base Comprehensive Energy Plan to 100 MW with a commitment for the stakeholders to consider a second 100 MW in 2008.
Page 6
KCP&L’s 2007 Wind RFP
Multiple options were requested to address alternatives for location timing, quantity and ownership structure
Both Kansas and Missouri sites were requested Minimum of 100 MW of wind powered generation to be on-line
by October 1, 2008 Options for additional 300 MW of wind powered generation to
be on-line by October 1, 2012 Asked for both PPA and Build/Transfer alternatives
Page 7
RFP Timeline
Issue Press Release and RFP • March 29, 2007
RFP’s due to KCPL• June 15, 2007
RFP Evaluation Process• June - August, 2007
Seek Regulatory and Stakeholder consensus• September – October, 2007
Contract Negotiations • September - October, 2007
Projected Construction Start Date • 2Q, 2008
Projected Last Turbine On-line Date • 4Q, 2008
Post 2008 Construction Activity Dependent Upon RFP Proposals
Page 8
KCP&L Received strong interest for projects to be completed in 2008 and from 2009-2012
• Missouri Proposals Received
– Two proposals were received that offered a 2008 on-line date
– Five proposals were received that offered a 2009 or later on-line date
• Kansas Proposals Received
– Nine proposals were received that offered a 2008 or 2009 on-line date
– Seven proposals were received that offered a 2009 or later on-line date
Page 9
Screening Methodology – 2008 On-line Proposals
Preliminary Screening• High Level Analysis – Evaluated all proposals based on multiple factors• Assessed unacceptable risk for completion or operation of the project• BTA Proposals – Moved to final screening evaluation if they passed the High Level
Analysis• PPA Financial Analysis – Ranked the PPA proposals from lowest cost to highest cost
for proposals in each state then performed High Level Analysis
Transmission Service Impact Analysis – KCPL hired an independent engineering firm to perform a load flow analysis on those proposals that were moved to the final screening evaluation process
Final Screening – Using the financial and generational data provided in each proposal, along with the results of the transmission service impact analysis, a 20-year Net Present Value Revenue Requirements (NPVRR) analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of each proposal against a No Wind base case.
Page 10
The cost to install 100 MW of new wind capacity has increased 55% over 2003 cost estimates
Wind Project Cost Increase (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Pe
rce
nt
Inc
rea
se
Page 11
Financial Analysis of 2008 vs. 2009 Projects
2008 VS. 2009 Wind Proposals (20 year NPVRR)
2008 2009 -w/ PTC
2009 -No
PTC
2008 2009 -w/ PTC
2009 -No
PTC
2008 2009 -w/ PTC
2009 -No
PTC
2008 2009 -w/ PTC
2009 -No
PTC
2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
ABTA BBTA CBTA DBTA/PPA EPPA APPA CPPA DPPA FPPA(MOSITE)
NP
VR
R
High CF Low CF No Additional Wind
Page 12
Required Renewables Estimate - Missouri & Kansas UtilityUnder Bingaman
Renewable Capacity Required (MW @ Cap Factors)
Year RPS % Retail Load
Req. Rene
w 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
2005 0% 160,770,816 0 0 0 0 0 0
2006 0.00% 166,356,444 0 0 0 0 0 0
2007 0.00% 168,257,057 0 0 0 0 0 0
2008 0.00% 172,555,893 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 0.00% 174,881,400 0 0 0 0 0 0
2010 3.75% 178,013,069 6,675,490 2,540 2,177 1,905 1,693 1,524
2011 3.75% 181,277,843 6,797,919 2,587 2,217 1,940 1,724 1,552
2012 3.75% 184,466,335 6,917,488 2,632 2,256 1,974 1,755 1,579
2013 7.50% 187,444,19914,058,31
5 5,349 4,585 4,012 3,566 3,210
2014 7.50% 190,491,24914,286,84
4 5,436 4,660 4,077 3,624 3,262
2015 7.50% 193,558,72014,516,90
4 5,524 4,735 4,143 3,683 3,314
2016 7.50% 196,381,88614,728,64
1 5,605 4,804 4,203 3,736 3,363
2017 11.25% 199,248,63422,415,47
1 8,529 7,311 6,397 5,686 5,118
2018 11.25% 202,165,46222,743,61
4 8,654 7,418 6,491 5,770 5,193
2019 11.25% 205,125,92823,076,66
7 8,781 7,527 6,586 5,854 5,269
2020 15.00% 208,132,72131,219,90
811,88
0 10,183 8,910 7,920 7,128
Page 13
And the winner is???