Ritchie Priddy

Attainment TechnologiesEmissions Solutions for Today

 

Integrating smart controls and clean on-site

generation

                                                               

Smart energy management – getting there from here

Hybrid model of regulation Instability in producing regions

More emphasis on energy independence & management Reserves being written down Drilling? Volatile fuel prices

Risk increasingly moving to end-users More environmental restrictions Little infrastructure investment No energy policy – problems ignored don’t go away!

Only way to meet future needs under present constraints is through smart energy management!

Smart energy management drivers

Conservation

Cost Savings

Reliability

Emissions Efficiency Security Shrinking supplies Congestion management Innovative rates T&D deferment Demand response National policy Technology Smart controls Liability

Old drivers New drivers+ = Future

• Smart Grid

(automation; controls, demand response)

• Efficiency Gains (increased load factors)

• Clear Skies (emissions trading)

Risk Management!

Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers rate survey 2nd Qtr 2002

Rate Increases By Line of BusinessRate Increases By Line of Business

No Change Up 1-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-50% 50%-100% >100%Change Up 1-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-50% 50%-100% >100%

Comm. Auto 2% 6% 28% 39% 21% 1% 1%

Workers Comp 5% 13% 19% 32% 15% 5% 2%

General Liability 2% 9% 24% 45% 15% 2% 1%

Comm. Umbrella 2% 4% 10% 20% 27% 17% 16%

Comm. Property* 3% 4% 16% 30% 31% 13% 1%

Business Interr. 3% 8% 32% 33% 10% 1% 0%

Source: Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.

First quarter after 9/11! No terrorism backup yet.

Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers rate survey, 3rd qtr 2003

Rate increases by line of businessRate increases by line of business

Down 1-10% No Change Up 1-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-50% 50%-100%Change Up 1-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-50% 50%-100%

Comm. Auto 12% 14% 42% 30% 0% 0% 0%

Workers Comp 10% 17% 31% 21% 8% 2% 2%

General Liability 9% 21% 39% 24% 4% 1% 1%

Comm. Umbrella 6% 17% 27% 33% 11% 4% 0%

Comm. Property* 24% 26% 28% 9% 2% 1% 0%

Terrorism* 6% 48% 15% 5% 1% 1% 0%

Business Interr. 11% 33% 34% 8% 2% 0% 0%

Surety Bonds 28% 18% 9% 9% 4% 2% 0%

Source: Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.

Rates are event-driven!

Traditional DG

DER

Busine

ss C

ontin

uity

Time

Risk Management Role

Backup Generation/Emergency

Whole System Appro

ach

On-site generation: a new model?

Traditional Approach

Not Participating Participating %

Energy Audits 202,475 24,338 10.7 Electricity Load Control 205,891 20,922 9.2 Special Rate Schedule 206,500 20,313 9.0 Standby Generation Program 220,531 6,282 2.8 Equipment Rebates 221,952 4,861 2.1 Power Factor Correction 207,272 19,541 8.6 Full Time Energy Manager 224,568 2,245 1.0

* EIA, manufacturing only

Room for improvement? US establishments participating in energy management

activity, 1998*

Computer control of building-wide environment #s In use % Not in use

Plastics and Rubber Products 11,944 1,278 10.7 9,849Machinery 19,577 1,780 9.1 16,298Food 16,553 1,349 8.1 13,627Printing and Related Support 25,782 1,900 7.4 20,170Miscellaneous 13,630 773 5.7 11,205Nonmetallic Mineral Products 11,333 643 5.7 9,925Fabricated Metal Products 40,743 2,083 5.1 35,434Furniture and Related Products 11,274 389 3.5 9,852Apparel 12,566 400 3.2 8,629Wood Products 11,663 284 2.4 10,199

Total: Top 10 Sectors 175,065 10,879 6.2 145,188* EIA

Number of establishments by usage of general energy-saving technologies, 1998*

Source: Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Energy Information Administration.

Sample

Real-time pricing/nominations to come?Customer Load Profile

(with +/- 10% swing)100

kWDemand

90

2:35

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

0

10

0:05 5:05 7:35 10:05 12:35 15:05 17:35 20:05 23:35

Out of range; penalties incurredAverage

weekend usage

Minus 10%

Bandwidth.Safe range;no penalties

Averageweekday usage

Plus 10%

Out of range;penalties incurred

Peak day usage

Time of Day

Source: CERA

Effective energy management strategy: using DG to keep usage within limits

Source: CERA

50

kWDemand

45

2:45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0

5

0:05 5:25 7:25 10:05 12:45 15:25 17:25 20:05 23:35

Minus tolerance

Bandwidth.average weekday

usage.

Plus tolerance

50 kW generatorturned on when

load reaches pre-determined point.

Generator is started by the EEM and follows the load, keeping the customer withinbandwidth. This will keep the customer from incurring penalties.

Time of Day

Principal AT markets

Congestion relief (demand response) Short term needs evidenced by expanding

programs Wholesale – PJM, NYISO, NE-ISO,

others Retail – Utility programs, CSP

Solution – Clean, low cost Distributed Generation and CHP Packages

Emissions reduction credits ERCs bring costs down, and can provide revenue

stream More trading programs established; more liquidity

evolving

Demand response can offer more!

According to FERC, Demand Response programs could save the U.S. economy $7.5 billion annually.

Peak Load Management Alliance states that in addition to the savings above, Demand Response programs could provide: Market efficiency (supply = demand) Risk management (more control over costs for end-users) Market mitigation (keeps peak prices lower) Environmental benefits (reduces need to run dirty plants) Deferred or avoided T&D upgrades (could be least-cost

solution)

DFW-related congestion costs

The DFW area (eight counties) identified as the number one congested area;

Annual Congestion costs > $82 million/yr Load continues to grow about 5% per year Current Load in 4-county metro* area: 15,068 MW (’02) Current Generation in 4-county metro area: 5,800 MW (’02) Shortfall: 9,268 MW (made up by importing power)

Additional generation plants built & planned in 8-county area: ~ 5,700 MW (all located outside congestion area)

Additional transmission lines planned ERCOT planners considering a NODAL (or locational pricing) plan

that many believe will significantly increase power prices in the region.

* 4-county Metro area includes: Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties

DFW environmental issues

The four-county Metro area is a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone.

The EPA State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Senate Bill 7 mandated specific actions to reduce NOx emissions from various sources by 2003, with additional reductions required by 2005.

This requires generation plants in the metro area to either retrofit with new NOx reduction devices, OR to limit operation.

“ . . The metro region could experience significant problems of peak period transmission adequacy and

voltage stability if a significant amount of in-region generation becomes unavailable and no new in- region plants or transmission system improvements are built.”

NYC power needs by 2008

Source: New York City Energy Policy: An Electricity Resource

Roadmap. Jan. 2004

Category Capacity (MW)Projected Demand 1. Need to Meet Demand Growth 665 2. Need to Assure Market Stability 1,000

3. Need to Replace Aging Power Plants^ 2,115

Total Capacity Need 3,780

LESSProjected Supply and Distributed Resources 4. Power Plants Under Construct ion (875)

5. Distributed Resources (300)

Net Capacity Need Through 2008 2,605 ̂Assumes that NYPA's existing Poletti plant

retired by 2008.

Category Base Case (MW) High Case (MW)

Peak Load Management 127 127

Energy Efficiency 300 868

Clean On-Site Generation 142 343

Total 569 1,338

Summary of Distributed Resources Potential

(2003-2008)

Electric Resources Net Need

(2003-2008)

Potential to Emit Calculation

Annual run t ime 8760Capacity 820Conversion of kw to bhp 1.407Conversion of gram to pound 454Conversion of pound to ton 2000

Units KW HP g/bhp-hr grams/year Lbs/year Tons/year1 820 1153.74 9 90,960,862 200,354 100.18 currently permitted1 820 1153.74 1.5 15,160,144 33,392 16.70 new rule1 820 1153.74 0.5 5,053,381 11,131 5.57 11.131 820 1153.74 0.3 2,958,077 6,516 3.26 13.44

Potential ERCs in tons for Nox at 0.5 grams. 11.13Market Value of ERCs for Nox/ton (2003 avg. NYC Severe Non-attainment area) $9,000Cost of Conversion and Emissions technology per engine* $135,000Aggregate Value of ERCs for Nox at 0.5 grams. $100,170Difference between conversion cost and ERC value $34,830Cost in $/ton of Nox reduced $1,426.88

NYC emissions reduction credit example

NYC clean dg possibilities

Engine Size Total Engines Capacity (MW)25-50 kW 26 150-100 kW 123 8100-250 kW 426 70250-500 kW 509 178500-750 kW 389 229750-1000 kW 328 2771000-1500 kW 319 3461500+ kW 116 211Total 2,236 1,320

NOx NOx w/EGR w/EGR Proposed Proposed ProposedEngine Type (g/hp-hr) (lbs/mwh) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) NY Rule^ NY Rule** NY Rule^^Diesel < 600 hp 14.06 41.54 7.03 4.22 0.544 5.438 9.0

Diesel > 600 hp 10.86 32.16 5.43 3.26 0.544 5.438 9.050% 70% 16.0 lbs/mwh

Category* High Case w/GreenGuard w/Diesel EGR TotalPeak Load Management 127 150 300 577Energy Efficiency 868 Plus 0 0 868Clean On-Site Generation 343 250 500 1,093Total 1,338 400 800 2,538

What if . . .

^ Spark-ignited engines

** Emergency Compression Engines installed prior to 1/1/09

^^ Existing Non-Emergency Diesel-fired engines

Summary of NYC Distributed Resources Potential 2003-2008

Ritchie PriddyBusiness Development DirectorAttainment Technologies, LLCPhone: 337-380-5383

Rpriddy@attainmenttech.com

www.attainmenttech.com

Contact information