1 / 14

North American Power Generation Forecast and Infrastructure Investment Analysis

Explore North American power generation trends by fuel type and forecast history, including gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, and other power assets. Discover key plants like MacKay River, Bear Creek, Sundance, and more, with a diversified portfolio primarily consisting of low-cost, baseload generation. Learn about high-efficiency facilities like Halton Hills and Ravenswood, driving stability and growth in crucial market regions. Delve into energy sector challenges, greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure investments, and regulatory processes impacting the energy landscape. Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2008.

ptigner
Download Presentation

North American Power Generation Forecast and Infrastructure Investment Analysis

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. North American Power Generation by Fuel Type MW (000’s) Forecast History Gas Coal Nuclear Hydro + Other

  2. Power Assets • 19 plants • 10,900 MW • Diversified portfolio primarily consists of low-cost, baseload generation MacKay River Bear Creek Sundance A&B Redwater Cartier Wind Sheerness Grandview Carseland Kibby Wind Bécancour Cancarb Portlands TC Hydro Halton Hills Gas (52%) Nuclear (23%) Coal (15%) Hydro (5%) Wind (5%) Ocean State Bruce Power Ravenswood Coolidge

  3. Portlands Energy Centre • A high-efficiency 550 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generation facility to deliver 25% of central Toronto’s energy needs • Schedule: • 2006 • Construction began • 2008 • 340 MW simple cycle started on time in late May 2008 • Construction of combined cycle facility • 2009 • 550 MW combined cycle facility to be in service Q1/09

  4. Halton Hills • A state of the art 683 MW combined cycle facility with low emissions technology will bring greater stability to GTA West • Schedule: • 2006 - 2007 • Field studies and permitting • Engineering and procurement • 2008 • Construction began • 2010 • 683 MW in service

  5. Ravenswood Generating Station • 2,480 MW facility • US$2.8 billion, 100% TransCanada • High quality asset in a critical market region • Platform for future growth through expansions and re-powering Montréal Boston Toronto Ravenswood New York

  6. Bruce Power • TransCanada’s interest • 48.7% in Bruce A • 31.6% in Bruce B • Long-term agreement with OPA to: • restart Units A1 & A2 • refurbish Units A3 & A4 • TransCanada to invest approx. $3 billion Montréal Bruce Power Boston Toronto New York Bruce A and Bruce B - Units 3-8 produce 4,700 MW - Units 1-2 will add 1,500 MW

  7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (2006) % of Total GHG Emissions (CO2e) Commercial/Other Residential Agricultural Electricity Oil & Gas Transportation

  8. Power Generation Alternatives

  9. Energy sector challenges Energy supply Energy transmission Demand side management Maturity of conventional gas . . . and the emergence of unconventional gas Public demands: lower prices, less greenhouse gas Public interest vs NIMBY, NUMBY, NAMBY, NIMEY, … Economic impact New infrastructure GHG compliance North America’s Energy Infrastructure Challenge

  10. North American Energy Infrastructure Investment Over $5.3 Trillion US$ from 2007-2030 Billion Real 2007 $US Annual Average 2007-2030 $44 $73 $115 $232 Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2008, Nov 2008 Reference Scenario

  11. North America’s Energy Infrastructure Challenge Regulatory Process Burden Cannot Get Anything Done Appropriate and Cost Effective Very Little Onerous and Expensive

  12. Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Cost Overruns $Millions 3,600 1,600 800 100 Protracted MVP Regulatory Process Comparable Project Regulatory Cost Cost of Capital on Regulatory Costs Inflation During Expected Delay Period Aggregate Impact on MVP Regulatory Process

  13. TransCanada Corporation

  14. Thank you Hal KvislePresident and CEOTransCanada Corporation

More Related