1 / 22

California’s Bioenergy Programs – Update to Options for Bioenergy Facilities

California’s Bioenergy Programs – Update to Options for Bioenergy Facilities. Paul Clanon & Judith Iklé California Public Utilities Commission January 2009 update (not presented) Bioenergy Working Group. CPUC Programs Available to Bioenergy Facilities. Net Energy Metering (NEM) Tariff

lewis
Download Presentation

California’s Bioenergy Programs – Update to Options for Bioenergy Facilities

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. California’s Bioenergy Programs – Update to Options for Bioenergy Facilities Paul Clanon & Judith Iklé California Public Utilities Commission January 2009 update (not presented) Bioenergy Working Group

  2. CPUC Programs Available to Bioenergy Facilities • Net Energy Metering (NEM) Tariff • Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) • Feed-In Tariff (FIT) – 2 options • AB 1969 (Yee, 2006) • AB 1613 (Blakeslee, 2007) • Qualifying Facilities (QF) • Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Solicitations • Bilateral Power Purchase Agreements (PPA)

  3. Program Guidelines - Facility/Seller Options • Net Energy Metering Tariff: Customer credited for onsite generation up to their annual onsite load • Self Generation Incentive Program: Provides upfront incentive to offset the capital investment for system installation • Utility Feed-In Tariff : Generator paid for output of biogas facility for 10,15, or 20 years based on CPUC adopted fixed price at start of contract • Qualifying Facility Contract: Generator has access to the Grid and is paid the avoided cost of power as determined by the CPUC • Renewable Portfolio Standard Solicitation Contract: Utility chooses best bids and negotiates a price with the seller • BilateralPower Purchase Agreements: Price negotiated between utility and seller outside an RPS solicitation

  4. Program Eligibility by Facility Capacity * Eligible technologies as of 1/1/08 are wind and fuel cells

  5. Biogas and biomass expected to be between 15% and 19% of the total RPS-eligible deliveries in 2010

  6. Gas Pipeline Interconnection for Biogas • Resolution E-4083 was approved August 23, 2007 for Microgy to inject cleaned and pressurized pipeline-grade biogas into PG&E’s pipeline system • PG&E Advice Letter E-3132 asks to amend the Microgy contract to allow ¼ of the biogas (up to 1600 MMBTU) to be supplied by a facility in Texas • CPUC approved Advice Letter E-3132 on October 2, 2008.

  7. SDG&E & SoCalGas Biogas Interconnection Proposals • SDG&E and SoCalGas have sought to subsidize gas interconnection costs for qualifying biogas projects by application and Advice Letter (AL). • In A.07-08-031 “Joint Climate Action Initiative”, SDG&E and SoCalGas proposed that all ratepayers pay to interconnect biogas projects that deliver over 500,000 cu. ft. gas per day. • On 6/27/08, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed a motion asking the CPUC to withdraw A.07-08-031 because of lack of activity and to avoid duplicating other climate-related proceedings. • In D.08-09-011, issued 9/4/08, the CPUC granted the utilities’ request and authorized the Energy Division to reject any advice letters related to the subject of A.07-08-031.

  8. Related Advice Letters –Biogas Interconnection • On 3/26/08, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed ALs with the interconnection subsidy proposal submitted in A 07-08-031.* Utilities filed ALs because of the alleged slow pace of A.07-08-031. • Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) protested both ALs on grounds that the utilities did not justify the subsidy. • Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC) protested SoCalGas’ AL asserting that an application or rulemaking is more appropriate for the requests. • Two biomethane suppliers supported the ALs re subsidy. • The CPUC issued a Draft Resolution on 8/19/08 denying the ALs because the proposals would modify a prior CPUC decision on interconnections. Therefore, an AL is inappropriate and an application is needed. • The Draft Resolution did not comment on the merits of the proposals. The Resolution is on the 9/18/08 Commission Meeting agenda. *(SDG&E AL 1760-G and SoCalGas AL 3847)

  9. Additional Program Particulars • Net Energy Metering • Self Generation Incentive Program • Feed In Tariffs • Qualifying Facilities • Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Programs • Standard Offer Contracts under the RPS

  10. Net Energy Metering for Bioenergy • Net Energy Metering: • Onsite generation provides customer with credit for net monthly power productionat the generation portion of their rate • Helpful to customers whose renewable generating potential is comparable to their annual consumption • NEM Eligible Technologies: • Biogas-fired generators and fuel cells • Differs from other types of NEM because it does not offset the distribution or transmission rate components NEM credit rates effective 8/1/08 Ranges indicate Winter - Summer rates

  11. Net Energy Metering – Eligibility and Enrollment • Program Guidelines • Statewide cap 50 MW • Facility capacity cap: • 1 MW • As pilot, 3 generating facilities statewide may be from 1 to 10 MW Current Enrollment* *As of 8/1/2008

  12. Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) for Bioenergy • Incentive Program • Since 2001, SGIP has provided an incentive to offset the upfront capital costs for bioenergy facilities • Funding pays for cost of installing generation equipment • Eligible Technologies • Through 12/31/2007 – biogas fueled Combined Heat and Power (CHP), internal combustion engines, small turbines, and fuel cells • After 1/1/2008 – fuel cells and wind turbines only • AB 2778 (Lieber, 2006) limited the number of eligible technologies • Annual Funding • $83 million/year per D.08-01-079.

  13. Pricing Characteristics of SGIP • Incentive Limitations • Minimum system size 30 kW • Systems up to 5 MW may apply for incentives, and • Incentives are paid for the first 3 MW, per D.08-04-049. • Only the fuel cell option remains post-1/1/08. • 1 MW plant is eligible for funding up to $4.5 million • Second MW receives up to $2.25 million and third MW receives up to $1.125 million Incentive Levels and Complete* Installations *as of 8/1/2008

  14. Feed In Tariff for Bioenergy CPUC is authorized to require utilities to offer Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) that apply to bioenergy under 2 scenarios • Scenario 1: Applies to all renewable fueled generation < 1.5 MW • AB 1969 (Yee, 2006) required utilities to purchase power from water/wastewater treatment plants • SB 380 expanded AB 1969 FIT to include any renewable generators and increased the statewide cap from 250 MW to 500 MW. • In R.08-08-009, the CPUC is currently considering whether to expand the FIT to projects up to 20 MW in size. • Scenario 2: Applies to all CHP up to 20 MW • AB 1613 (Blakeslee, 2007) requires utilities to purchase power from new (and potentially, repowered) CHP facilities (included biogas fueled facilities) • CPUC implementation is just starting—Energy Division Staff Proposal of the tariff will be issued January 16, with workshops to follow.

  15. CPUC Adopts Market Price Referent • Calculated annually for RPS Solicitations • Calculates levelized all-in market price deemed per se reasonable, i.e. recoverable through rates • Feed-In tariff programadopts MPR values for pricing *Adopted 12/18/2008 in Resolution E-4214.

  16. Pricing Characteristics of Feed-in Tariffs (Scenario 1: AB 1969) • Fixed price is determined by Market Price Referent (MPR), as adjusted by time of delivery and season • Price schedule extends 10-20 years and is listed in tariff • Tariffs transfer Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from generator to utility • Two options under tariff (depending on customer’s choice): • Full sale of production • Excess sales (after onsite usage) Sample Tariff Levels for AB1969 (Illustrative prices)* *Adopted October 2007.These numbers are illustrative only, for a 15-year contract. There are a number of factors that will affect these the actual price such as the length of contract and year of initial commercial operation. This is an instantaneous price, not a weighted average.

  17. Feed-in Tariffs (Scenario 2: AB 1613) • Fixed or variable price to be determined by the CPUC. CPUC can require IOUs to purchase excess electricity. • Price schedule extends to a maximum of 10 years • CHP systems must be sized to the customer’s thermal load (Sec. 2842). • There is no requirement that CHP systems be sized to the customer’s electric load. Thus, oversized systems (from an electric perspective) are permitted. • A 20 MW maximum size limit applies (Sec. 2840). • Only new CHP systems (installed after January 1, 2008) are eligible. (Sec. 2841). However, per AB1613, the CPUC is considering whether repowered CHP will be eligible. • A NOx standard of 0.07 pounds per MWh applies, with a credit to CHP customer-generators that are 60% efficient or better of 1 MWh per 3.4 MMBtu of waste heat recovered.

  18. Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 established QFs and outlined their payment according to the avoided cost of power QF is defined as non-utility generator with less than 80 MW capacity that utilizes cogeneration and/or renewable fuels (for bioenergy, ≥ 95% biomass) There are currently 69 bioenergy QFs Many bioenergy facilities came online as QFs in the 1980s New standard offer contracts are currently being assembled. There has been little input from renewable energy representatives Qualifying Facility Program for Bioenergy Current Enrollment for Bioenergy Qualifying Facilities* *As of August 2008. Includes biomass and landfill gas but not municipal solid waste.

  19. Characteristics of RPS Contracts • RPS statute mandates that IOUs, ESPs and CCAs procure an additional 1% of retail sales per year from eligible renewable sources until 20% is reached no later than 2010 (SB 1078 and 107) • Contract Price • Pricing of all RPS contracts is negotiated between buyer and seller • Contract Term • Contracts for 10,15, or 20 years are most common • Short term contracts are also allowed • Renewable Energy Resources • CEC determines what resources are RPS-eligible • Bioenergy resources include agricultural waste, solid waste, biogas, and others • Utility owns the RECs from RPS generation • Commission is considering authorization of tradable RECs • Prevents double counting of renewable attributes

  20. RPS Bioenergy Contracts* • Since 2002, the CPUC has approved: • 18 biomass projects (307 MW)1 • 18 biogas projects (46 MW)2 • 4 additional biogas contracts (7.4 MW) and 3 additional biomass contracts (95 MW) that were later canceled • 58% of the biogas capacity and 39% of the biomass capacity is from new or re-started facilities • 23 MW of new biogas facilities have come online • Two re-started biomass facilities (26 MW) are online • Many new biomass projects are delayed. Common barriers are difficulties with fuel supply and/or site control • 20 MW of new biomass capacity and request to extend contracts for 44 MW of existing capacity pending approval at CPUC 1. Includes 1 contract renewal for 49 MW 2. Includes 2 contract renewals for 8 MW *As of 1/7/2009

  21. Bioenergy and Bilateral Power Purchase Agreements • Renewable energy purchased at a negotiated price from facilities of all sizes • Opportunity for generators who might otherwise not participate in an RPS Solicitation • Generation can fulfill a Load-Serving Entity’s RPS requirement • In 2008, CPUC approved several bilateral PPAs for bioenergy projects

  22. SCE’s Standard Offer Biomass Contracts • SCE currently offers standard offer contracts for bioenergy 0 -1 MW, 1-5 MW, and 5-20 MW facilities • SCE recognized that smaller biomass projects have had difficulties in participating in SCE’s annual solicitations. • By eliminating the complex negotiation process that is needed for larger projects, the program gives smaller projects the opportunity to execute contracts with SCE and contribute to the State’s RPS goals. • CPUC has approved 2 of these contracts.

More Related