The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The crux of the proposed agreement was a sale price of 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly three times the price National Grid pays for energy from fossil-fuel fired power plants and nuclear facilities [improper project comparison]. Over the 20-year contract, the price would have escalated by 3.5 percent annually, so, by the final year, it would have been 48.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Combined with a 2.75-percent markup on clean energy that National Grid was allowed by Rhode Island law, it would have meant hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs to the state's 480,000 ratepayers over two decades.
Setting aside NYMBI and EIS window-dressing on 12.9% UE and Carcieri (R) : This 8-turbine "demo" is no simple installation and MOE demo. Look at the JOBSTM bait: Why buy, when you can build it all for much, much more?
Deepwater Wind has pledged a significant private investment in Rhode Island of approximately $1.5 billion with the construction of a regional manufacturing facility in Quonset, and creating up to 800 direct jobs, with annual wages of $60 million. The Quonset facility will manufacture support structures upon which the turbine and its tower are based and will serve the entire northeast... Read more...
Read more...
When the hearings opened on Tuesday, the director of the Energy Council of Rhode Island, a nonprofit organization that represents 35 of the state's leading manufacturers, universities and hospitals, vehemently argued against Deepwater's proposed price. John Farley told the commission that the high price would harm large businesses in Rhode Island that use a lot of electricity. Moore began the session on Wednesday by responding to Farley's statements, which were made as part of the public comment period and not submitted as formal testimony that could have been reviewed by the commission and other parties beforehand. He said Farley failed to consider that power from the wind farm could actually lead to some cost savings by displacing the most expensive types of oil-generated electricity sold on the energy spot market. A study commissioned by Deepwater and issued Tuesday found that 40 percent of the additional costs of power from the Block Island project could be offset by what Moore called the price-suppression phenomenon. The Cambridge, Mass.-based Charles River Associates carried out the study and has done a similar analysis for Cape Wind [!], an offshore wind farm proposed in Massachusetts. Moore was asked several times about Deepwater's projected return on investment for the Block Island wind farm. He said Deepwater estimates a return of between 15 and 18 percent for its investors. He said that range is relatively low considering the high amount of risk [?!] involved in offshore wind farms, which have been built in Europe, but not in the U.S. Read more...
Moore began the session on Wednesday by responding to Farley's statements, which were made as part of the public comment period and not submitted as formal testimony that could have been reviewed by the commission and other parties beforehand.
He said Farley failed to consider that power from the wind farm could actually lead to some cost savings by displacing the most expensive types of oil-generated electricity sold on the energy spot market. A study commissioned by Deepwater and issued Tuesday found that 40 percent of the additional costs of power from the Block Island project could be offset by what Moore called the price-suppression phenomenon. The Cambridge, Mass.-based Charles River Associates carried out the study and has done a similar analysis for Cape Wind [!], an offshore wind farm proposed in Massachusetts.
Moore was asked several times about Deepwater's projected return on investment for the Block Island wind farm. He said Deepwater estimates a return of between 15 and 18 percent for its investors. He said that range is relatively low considering the high amount of risk [?!] involved in offshore wind farms, which have been built in Europe, but not in the U.S.
FFS. Elsewhere Deepwater claims being awarded DOE grants. How much of its investment capital derive from RGGI proceeds? How many MW available for export to RGGI or other spot exchanges? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Perspective on $0.244/kwh Deepwater - National Grid, Y1
Additional fees and taxes apply to kwh billing. For example, MD is an RGGI member, too. Itemization of Feb 2010 (seasonal residential rate/kwh) is as follows. And this wasn't an actual meter reading; Pepco estimates and bills! har har har.
Distribution Services 0.02247 (x 460KWH) Energy Charge 0.00003 (x 460KWH) Demand Side Management Surcharge 0.00062 (x 460KWH) Franchise Tax (delivery) 0.00015 (x 460KWH) Universal Service Charge 0.00533 (x 460KWH) MD Environmental Surcharge 0.00105 (x 460KWH) MoCo Energy Tax 0.02040 (x 460KWH) Gross Receipts Tax (%) (0.00093)(x 460KWH) RGGI Rate Credit (0.00105)(x 460KWH) Administrative Credit SUBTOTAL $19.64
Generation Services 0.11579 (x 460KWH) Energy Charge 0.00016 (x 460KWH) Procurement Cost Adjustment SUBTOTAL $53.34
Transmission Services 0.00348 (x 460KWH) Energy Charge 0.0204 (x 460KWH) Gross Receipts Tax (%) SUBTOTAL $1.63 TOTAL $74.61
::
0.244 x 460KWH = $103.04 Generation Services, +93% 0.486 x 460KWH = $223.56 Generation Services, +319%
Deepwater's proposal is simply insulting. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
re: Y1 - Y20, pymt pd
current NGrid rate = $0.09532/KWH (excluding transmission, taxes, fees) new NGrid rate = $0.244/KWH (excluding transmission, taxes, fees)
final NGrid rate = either Y20 $1.43/KWH (Y1 0.09532 + .486); or Y20 $0.486/KWH (Y1 0.244 + 0.242)
NB. PUC Docket 4111, Y1 $0.244/KWH = $1.35/500KW/mo on average Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Also, the 24.4c/kWh will be for one of the supply sources of NG and will be mixed with its other sources. It is NG that will bear the possible additional cost on a small fraction of its supplies (possible, because the rest may become more expensive when gas prices go up again, as they will). Wind power
Interesting, too, was reference to a Ontario Power Authority's Lake Erie PPA, recognizing 40% premium for offshore relative to onshore wind supply. That reference is more apt to NGrid's current supplier and distribution mix. As you know, I guess, NGrid already resells onshore wind at SOS +0.025/KWH - +0.34/KWH.
In any case my interest as always is "billing impact," and here in particular what appears to be amortization of ICC (for 8 3.6MW turbines and one $5M cable) that doesn't necessarily contribute significantly to avoided costs over the period. So I'm wondering, again, Where is Rhode Island's stimulus check? And what is the "feed-in" price at Y20?
And from what component(s) of does Deepwater's 18% ROI over the period derive? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by gmoke - Apr 22 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 23 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 30
by Oui - May 12
by Oui - May 115 comments
by Oui - May 11
by Oui - May 109 comments
by Oui - May 10
by Oui - May 921 comments
by Oui - May 9
by Oui - May 81 comment
by Oui - May 73 comments
by Oui - May 7
by Oui - May 63 comments
by Oui - May 61 comment
by Oui - May 5
by Oui - May 58 comments
by Oui - May 44 comments
by Oui - May 3
by Oui - May 21 comment
by Oui - May 1