msu issues & opportunities
DESCRIPTION
Integrated Approach to Energy Planning. Demand Management. MSU Issues & Opportunities. Supply Management. Integrated Energy Planning Moving Forward. Kathy Lindahl, MSU | Nick Travis and Rob McKenna, Energy Strategies, LLC. MSU Issues. Powerplant capacity issue - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
MSU Issues & Opportunities
Supply Management
Demand ManagementIntegrated Approach to
Energy Planning
Integrated Energy Planning Model
Integrated Energy Planning Moving
Forward
Kathy Lindahl, MSU | Nick Travis and Rob McKenna, Energy Strategies, LLC
MSU Issues• Powerplant capacity issue• CCX – CO2 emission constraints
– Nationally – something will happen• Technologies
– What do we buy next– Is it ripe enough
• Growth - Continue to add 1MM GSF per decade– 2MM in most recent decade
• Deferred maintenance• Driving for flexibility• How to integrate the ability to make good financial decision while
managing other complexities.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11 2020-21 2030-31
Electric (1,000 Kilowatts) Steam (100,000 Pounds/Hour)
Fiscal Year
FIRM ELECTRIC CAPACITY 90,000 KW
FIRM STEAM CAPACITY 950,000 Pounds/Hour
Physical Plant DivisionPeak Annual Demands
Total Electric Capacity 114,000 KW Total Steam Capacity 1,300,000 #/Hour
2023 “Tipping Point”
Bend the Line toward Environmental Stewardship
"Dr. King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice....“
Senator Barack Obama
Regulatory & Policy Support
Market Monitoring & Intelligence
Dynamic Baseline & Performance Measurement
Development & Implementation
Investment Analysis
Contract Negotiations
Funding
Operation
Procurement
Regulatory Intervention
Rate Design
Supp
lem
enta
l Ext
erna
l Sub
ject
Matt
er
Expe
rtise
(e.g
. tec
hnic
al, l
egal
)
Inte
rnal
Sub
ject
Matt
er E
xper
tise
Internal Leadership
Strategic Planning
Integrated Strategic Resource Planning
Examples:•Energy/Utility Master Plans•Climate Action Plans
Integrated Decision Support FrameworkEconomic, Financial and Decision Analysis
Define Decision Metrics
Analyze Historical Data
Define Starting “Test Year”
Definition & Scope Measure Performance
MSU General Analytical Direction
Add Givens
Create Baseline
Reference Case
Add, Renovate
& Demolish
Impact Demand
Vary Utility Plant
Operations
Impact Supply
Invest in Energy
Conserva-tion
Modify Behavior, Space Use & Building Standards
Apply Alternative Utility Plant Technology
Vary External Planning Environment
Feedback & Adjustment
Vary Procure-
ment Practices
You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Cost of Service (FS)
Capital Intensity (FS)
Bonding Capacity (FS)
Capital Efficiency (FS)
Financial Risk (FS)
Reliability (OE)
Efficiency (OE)
Capacity Constraints (OE)Criteria Pollutants (ES)
GHG Emissions (ES)
Water (ES)
Solid Waste (ES)
Research (OML)
Local Economy (OML)
Outreach (OML)
Expand Metrics for Insight & Trade OffsIdeal Sample Trade off
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Fiscal Stewardship (FS)
Operational Excellence (OE)
Environmental Stewardship (ES)
Other Mission Linked (OML)
"Buckets" for Decision MetricsIdeal Sample Trade off
Insight/Decision Modules:
Integrated Energy Planning ModelModel Description/Charter: The demands for energy at Michigan State University (MSU) and the manner in which those demands are served represent a complex portfolio of accumulated decisions. The purpose of this model is to provide a dynamic, integrated planning resource that is designed to allow the user to effi ciently gain insights with respect to current and alternative courses of energy planning related actions. Use the navigation provided below to navigate to the desired location. On each page you will see the following "Home" button. Click this button to return to this page. Home
Confirm Baseline Reference Case
Energy Management PlanningDemand Related
Energy Mangement PlanningSupply Related
Integrated Energy Management Portfolio Planning
Establish External Planning Environment
Documentation & Other Resources
CAPITAL STEWARDSHIP VALUE UNITCost of Utility Service Current Year $30.3 2010 $ MM Forecast Horizon $968 2010 $ MM PVRequired Capital 1-5 Years $0 2010 $ MM 6-10 Years $0 2010 $ MM Forecast Horizon $74 2010 $ MM PV
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 AssumptionNet GSF (MM) 22.9 23.9 25.0 26.0 27.0 Trend"Givens" ModifyFuture Trend Renovation 30%Future Trend Demolition 10%Existing No Change 22.9 20.3 18.1 15.9 13.7
% of NewCentral Connect - Electric 20.0 21.5 22.9 24.4 25.9 100%Central Connect - Steam 17.7 19.1 20.6 22.1 23.6 100%
Peak Annual Peak AnnualExisting Campus Averaage 2.4 46 35.9 151Renovations 2.5 46 35.9 151Additions 2.8 46 35.9 151Units W/GSF KBTU/GSF BTU/GSF KBTU/GSF
Unit Nameplate N-1 Nameplate N-1Generator 1 12.5 250Generator 2 12.5 250Generator 3 15.0 350 X ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP VALUE UNITGenerator 4 21.0 350 GHG EmissionsGenerator 5 24.0 X 115 Current Year 545,638 MTCO2eGenerator 6 13.5 2050 701,852 MTCO2eCPC Tie-Line 21.0 Financial Exposure to Carbon - Forecast Period $642 2010 $ MM PV
OUTPUTS
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Boiler 4HRSG6
Unit
AVAILABLE CAPACITYElectric (MW) Steam (klb)
Boiler 1Boiler 2Boiler 3
ENERGY USE INTENSITY (CAMPUS SENDOUT)Electric Steam
SPACE PLANNING
Renovations, Demolitions, Additions% of Existing Renovated by 2050
% of Existing Demolished by 2050
INPUTS
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Net
Cam
pus
Spac
e (1
,000
GSF
) Click to See Larger Chart
BAU Tipping Point: 2023
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
klb
Peak Non-Discretionary Steam
BAU Tipping Point: 2045
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
MW
Nameplate Capacity N-1 Capacity Peak Sendout Post EUI Sendout Peak
Insight/Decision Modules:
Integrated Energy Planning ModelModel Description/Charter: The demands for energy at Michigan State University (MSU) and the manner in which those demands are served represent a complex portfolio of accumulated decisions. The purpose of this model is to provide a dynamic, integrated planning resource that is designed to allow the user to effi ciently gain insights with respect to current and alternative courses of energy planning related actions. Use the navigation provided below to navigate to the desired location. On each page you will see the following "Home" button. Click this button to return to this page. Home
Confirm Baseline Reference Case
Energy Management PlanningDemand Related
Energy Mangement PlanningSupply Related
Integrated Energy Management Portfolio Planning
Establish External Planning Environment
Documentation & Other Resources
IllustrationExpand Grid Purchases Option
Alternatives
Baseline Reference Case
Sub-Category
Energy Management Category
Supply -Plant Operation Practices
Make vs. Buy Electricity
Minimize Grid Purchases
Minimize CTG
Minimize Grid Purchases
Expand CTG Use
Expand Grid Purchases
Fuel Switching
Maximize Coal Use
Expand NG Use Expand Biomass Use
Link to GlossaryCHANGE IN GRID PURCHASES BY RATE PERIOD VALUE UNIT CAPITAL STEWARDSHIP VALUE UNIT COS Horizon VSGTargeted Reduction in Peak Steam Production 12.5 MW equivalent Cost of Utility Service Increase (Decrease)Winter (Oct-May), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 10.0 Avg MW per hour Current Year ($4.7) 2010 $ MMWinter (Oct-May), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 10.0 Avg MW per hour Forecast Horizon ($122) 2010 $ MM PVSummer (Jun-Sep), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 10.0 Avg MW per hour Incremental Capital Increase (Decrease)Summer (Jun-Sep), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 10.0 Avg MW per hour 1-5 Years -$ 2010 $ MMLoad Factor 80% Percent 6-10 Years -$ 2010 $ MM
Forecast Horizon -$ 2010 $ MM PVCHANGE IN STEAM PRODUCTION BY SOURCE VALUE UNITBLR1,2 (Pulverized Coal) 55% % of Total DisplacedBLR3 (Pulverized Compliance Coal) 25% % of Total Displaced OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE VALUE UNIT Efficiency Elemental VSGBLR4 (Fluidized Bed Coal) 20% % of Total Displaced Available Capacity Increase (Decrease)
Steam Generation 171 MlbUTILITY PLANT/BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS VALUE UNIT Equivalent New Building Space Served 3.4 millions of GSFHeat Rate for Condensing Steam 12.50 Steam lbs per kWh Increase (Decrease) in Current Year:
50 Steam lbs per kGSF Discretionary Condensing Steam ("DCS") -44% % of Total DCS Electricity Purchases 29% % of Total Net Campus
PURCHASED ENERGY PRICE SCENARIO VALUE UNIT Primary Energy (Source) -10% % of Total MMBtu Coal 0% % Real Annual GrowthNatural Gas % Real Annual GrowthPurchased Electricity - General Service 0% % Real Annual Growth ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP VALUE UNIT GHG Elemental VSGPurchased Electricity - Green Power 25.00$ $/MWh Cost Premium GHG EmissionsPurchased Electricity - Green Power 50% % of Total Purchased Current Year -16% % of Total
Forecast Period -16% % of TotalREGULATORY SCENARIO VALUE UNIT Financial Exposure to Carbon - Forecast Period ($82) 2010 $ MM PVClimate Change Policy Moderate ScenarioClimate Change Carbon Costs EV ScenarioClean Air Act Criteria Pollutants ScenarioCoal Ash EPA Scenario
SUPPLY OF ENERGYPLANT OPERATION PRACTICES
EXPAND GRID PURCHASES - DISPLACE CONDENSING GENERATION
SUPPLY OF ENERGYPLANT OPERATION PRACTICES
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
FISCAL STEWARDSHIP
SUPPLY OF ENERGYPLANT OPERATION PRACTICES
EXPAND GRID PURCHASES - DISPLACE CONDENSING GENERATION
OUTPUTS -VISUAL
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
EXPAND GRID PURCHASES - DISPLACE CONDENSING GENERATION
OUTPUTS - NUMERICINPUTS
1.6 -0.9
-0.1 0.7
0
1
1
2
2
Fuel - Coal Electricity purchased
Grid transmission losses
Net increase (decrease)
mtC
O2e
3
15
19 -3
-6
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
Electric energy made
Condensing steam
Fuel & power to make steam
Electric energy purchased
Grid losses Net increase (decrease)
MM
Btu
178
92 -70
-52-26
0 122
82 203
050
100150200250300
Fuel Non-fuel opex
Electric purchases - energy
Electric purchases - demand
Green power
premium
Capital Net increase
(decrease) w/o
carbon
Carbon Net increase
(decrease) w/carbon
PV 2
010$
MM
HomeReturn
Dashboard – Expand Grid Purchases
An Elemental Understanding of Value Drivers per MWhExpand Grid Purchases
Operational ExcellenceEnergy Intensity
Environmental Stewardship GHG Intensity
Electric
energy made
Condensing st
eam
Fuel & power t
o make
steam
Electric
energy purch
ased
Grid lo
sses
Net (incre
ase) d
ecrease
0
5
10
15
20
25
3
15
19 1916
10
MM
Btu
1.6 -0.9
-0.1 0.7
0001111122
Fuel - Coal Electricity purchased
Grid transmission
losses
Net (increase) decrease
mtC
O2e
$1.7 $0.9 ($0.8)
($3.0)
$0.0 $0.0 ($1.2) $0.0 ($1.2)
($2.0)($1.0)$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0
Fuel Non-fuel opex
Electric purchases - energy
Electric purchases - demand
Green power
premium
Capital Net (increase) decrease
w/o carbon
Carbon Net (increase) decrease
w/ carbon
2010
$MM
Link to Glossary Scenario: Peak FollowCHANGE IN GRID PURCHASES BY RATE PERIOD VALUE UNITTargeted Reduction in Peak Steam Production 18.4 MW equivalentWinter (Oct-May), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 1.5 Avg MW per hourWinter (Oct-May), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 5.3 Avg MW per hourSummer (Jun-Sep), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 1.0 Avg MW per hourSummer (Jun-Sep), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 7.1 Avg MW per hourLoad Factor 30% Percent
INPUTS
What if: Vary Grid Purchases So Peak is Set by Non-Discretionary Steam Demands
$7.0
$3.6 ($2.7)
($2.0)$0.0 $0.0
$5.8 $0.0
$5.8
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0
$10.0 $12.0
Fuel Non-fuel opex
Electric purchases - energy
Electric purchases - demand
Green power
premium
Capital Net (increase) decrease
w/o carbon
Carbon Net (increase) decrease
w/ carbon
2010
$MM
What if: Purchase Blocks of Grid Power to Spread Fixed Capacity Charges over More MWh
Link to Glossary Scenario: BlockCHANGE IN GRID PURCHASES BY RATE PERIOD VALUE UNITTargeted Reduction in Peak Steam Production 12.5 MW equivalentWinter (Oct-May), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 10.0 Avg MW per hourWinter (Oct-May), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 10.0 Avg MW per hourSummer (Jun-Sep), Off-Peak Hours (7PM-11AM) 10.0 Avg MW per hourSummer (Jun-Sep), On-Peak Hours (11AM-7PM) 10.0 Avg MW per hourLoad Factor 80% Percent
INPUTS
What if: Purchase Green Power to Avoid Grid GHG Emissions
$7.0
$3.6 ($2.7)
($2.0)($2.0)
$0.0 $3.8
$0.0
$3.8
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0
$10.0 $12.0
Fuel Non-fuel opex
Electric purchases - energy
Electric purchases - demand
Green power
premium
Capital Net (increase) decrease
w/o carbon
Carbon Net (increase) decrease
w/ carbon
2010
$MM
143.1 -78.7
-5.9 58.5
020406080
100120140160
Fuel - Coal Electricity purchased
Grid transmission losses
Net (increase) decrease
mtC
O2e
(000
's)
143.1 0.0 -5.9 137.2
020406080
100120140160
Fuel - Coal Electricity purchased
Grid transmission losses
Net (increase) decrease
mtC
O2e
(000
's)
Without Green Power With 100% Green Power
Vision of Integrated Planning Tools in the Future