1 / 8

PG&E’s Oakley Application (A.12-03-026)

This is a case study of PG&E's application for a new gas-fired power plant in Oakley, Contra Costa County. The application has faced challenges and protests from various parties.

fryes
Download Presentation

PG&E’s Oakley Application (A.12-03-026)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PG&E’s Oakley Application(A.12-03-026) Yuliya Shmidt, lead Selena Huang, analyst Candace Morey, attorney May 23, 2012 Image of proposed Oakley plant from California Energy Commission: www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-800-2011-002/CEC-800-2011-002-CMF.pdf

  2. Oakley (Contra Costa) Power Plant • New combined cycle natural gas-fired facility in Contra Costa County • 584 megawatts (MW) • Heat rate of 6,752 British Thermal Units per kilowatt-hour (BTU/kWh) • Total cost of approximately $1.15 billion • Alleged to be efficient (low fuel consumption and GHG emissions) and fast-ramping • Bid into PG&E’s 2008 Long-Term Request for Offers (LTRFO) • Was shortlisted • PG&E executed a power and sale agreement (PSA) for the facility in 2009 • Fully permitted (although CEC permit is being challenged in the courts) and began construction in June 2011 2

  3. Procedural Background • In 2007, the Long-Term Procurement Plan proceeding found a need of 800-1,200 MW of new generation for PG&E (D.07-12-052) • PG&E filled that need in 2008 and 2009 with two projects which have been approved (Mariposa and Mirant Marsh Landing) • To fill the last of its need, PG&E proposed three facilities simultaneously in 2009: • Oakley Plant (utility-owned generation, A.09-09-021): 584 MW • GWF Tracy (PPA, A.09-10-022): 145 MW • Calpine Los Esteros (PPA, A.09-10-034):109 MW • DRA recommended that the Commission approve either Oakley or GWF Tracy and Calpine Los Esteros 3

  4. Procedural Background Continued… • The Commission conditionally approved the GWF Tracy and Calpine Los Esteros plants if Oakley were denied (D.10-07-042) • The Commission then rejected Oakley citing a lack of need for the plant but allowing it to be resubmitted if one of three events occurred (D.10-07-045): • a project fails creating an open need • PG&E is able to retire a Once Through Cooling plant ahead of schedule • The CAISO Renewable Integration Study demonstrates that there are reliability risks from integrating the 33% RPS • Since Oakley was denied, GWF Tracy and Calpine Los Esteros were approved 4

  5. Procedural Background Continued… • PG&E immediately filed a Petition for Modification (PFM) of the Oakley decision • Changed the online date from 2014 to 2016 to better fit with PG&E’s need • All other aspects of the Application remained the same • Procedurally, the CPUC could not approve the facility as a PFM • The Commission, sua sponte, converted the PFM to an Application • The Application for PG&E to purchase and operate the Oakley facility with a 2016 online date was approved in 2010 (D.10-12-050) • TURN challenged D.10-12-050 in the California Court of Appeal • In March 2012, the Court annulled the Decision because did not follow “proper procedures” (TURN v. California Public Utilities Commission, Case No. A132439) 5

  6. Updated Application • PG&E immediately filed a new Application to purchase and operate the Oakley plant with the 2016 online date (A.12-03-026) • Proposal is identical to previous Application • Leaves open the possibility that the plant comes online in 2014 and operates as a merchant until purchase date of 2016 • PG&E claims this is unlikely • PG&E did not filed Testimony with its Application but alleged that its Testimony will be filed on May 16 • Eight parties, including DRA, filed protests • Two parties – CARE and Independent Energy Producers – filed Motions to Dismiss • Administrative Law Judge Rulings set a Prehearing Conference for May 22, directed parties to immediately begin discovery, and shortened PG&E’s time to reply to protests 6

  7. DRA’s Protest • PG&E has no authority nor outstanding need to procure this plant • PG&E has not met any of the three requirements for resubmitting Oakley • Need for new generation being determined in the LTPP (R.12-03-014) • That proceeding is ongoing with a Decision expected by the end of 2012 • It is the appropriate venue for a need determination • Application does not comply with requirements for filing a UOG proposal, new rules require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (D.12-04-046) • The previous proceeding’s partial settlement on cost recovery – to which DRA is a signatory – is no longer in effect • The plant may no longer be competitive and its value, as a potentially-used plant, is not the same as a brand-new facility 7

  8. Follow-up Actions • At Pre-Hearing Conference on May 22 emphasized that: • PG&E does not have authority for this plant • PG&E has not satisfied the requirements for submitting this Application • Challenge PG&E’s extremely aggressive proposed schedule • Request more time for discovery and intervenor testimony • Reserve right to hearings • Supported Independent Energy Producer’s Motion to Dismiss 8

More Related