HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 Purchase Power Load,Resources,Peaks Agenda Item
## 13
TRUCKEE DONNER I
:.
Public Utility Distric
WORKSHOP
To: Board of Directors
From: Stephen Hollabaugh
Date: March 16, 2011
Subject: Discussion of 2010 Purchase Power Load, Resources, Peaks,
Comparison to 2010 Budget Forecast
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
This workshop is to review the District's actual vs. budgeted purchase power costs
and energy consumption 10.
2. HISTORY
On October 21, 2009 the workshop "Purchase Power Plan - 2010-2011 Budget
Review" was presented to the Boa
rd. This workshop covered the followin topics:
Portfolio Standard Mission Statement and Objectives, Renewableg p
ndard Target,
Conservation as First Resource, Diversified Power
Supply Plan, Future Renewable
Resources, Proposed Resources for 2010, Risk to Budget Analysis and 2010
Forecast Costs.
The Purchase Power Plan 2010 budget was a rov
2009. The 2010 Plan bud ete pp ed by the Board on November 18,
g d amounts are shown in the following table:
Cost Component Bud et
Eller MWhTotal Energy Supply- Various $9,765,024
$61.03
Transmission Wheeling - SPPC $1,043,766 6.52
Scheduling - NCPA �
Market Purchases - $75,348 $0.47
NCPA $0 $0
Central Valley Project- WAPA $39,616 0.25
Totals $
$109923,754 $68.27
The 2010 budget was based on a forecasted
ears a energy purchase of 1609000 MWh.
Historical data for 2010 and prior
y re included for reference on Attachment A.
3. NEW INFORMATION
Summary budgeted versus actual amounts fo
r 2010 are shown in the following table:
Descri tion Bud et Act
Total Energy Purchases Actual
Total EnergyConsumption, $10,923,753 $10,450,398
mption, MWh 160,000 158,494
Purchase Cost per MWh $68 27
$65.94
The total purchased power costs were 4.3% les
s than budgeted and total energy
consumption in the Disctrict during 2010 was about 1% less mayor factors that affect the total arch s than forecasted. The two
consumption b our purchased power cost are resource cost and ener
y custormers. While our forecasted energyconsumption gy
160,000 MWh was very close to the actual amount, Pon value of
the budgeted amount. This w the resource cost was less than
as due to the cost difference between UAMP's a
generation resources used during 2010 as opposed actual
resources. In addition, the cost of pp to our forecast of generation
natural gas was lower than forecasted durin 201
The lower than expected natural gas prices resulted g 0�
o p ulted in a lower market price for power,
and a lower UAMPS
pool price for power. All these factors helped t
65, p o reduce the
District's actual purchased energy cost to $ 94 per MWh, about 3.4% below the
budgeted amount.
Energy costs and consumption by month are
below. graphically depicted
The forecast versus actual power purchase cost
for 2010 as shown in the graph below:
2010 Power Purchase Cost
$12,000,000
$10,923,75 $10,450,398
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
■WAPA cost/(credit)toward
M W h's
$6,000,000 ■Scheduling-NCPA
$4,000,000 ■Transmission -SPPCo.
$2,000,000 ■Total Energy Supply-
$0
Budget Actual
-$2,000,000
The forecast versus actual monthly MWh consumption
below: for 2010 is shown In the graph
I
2010 Monthly Energy consumption
18,000,000 MVVh
16,000,000 ■Budgeted ■Actual
I
14,000,000
M 12,000,000
I W
jh 10,000,000
i
8,000,000
I
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
i
The Monthly Peak MW for 2008 through 2010 is sho
wn below.
Wbrthly Peak ivies
2008s 2009, 2010
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0 ■2010 Peak MW
15.0
10.0 ■2009 Peak MW
5.0
0.0 2 2008 Peak MW
PQR- Py
The District experiences its peak load in Dec
constant load with a small ea ember. The summer months have a
peak In July.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
Detailed budgeted versus actual amounts for 2010
are shown in the following table:
Power Purchases, MWh
Total Energy Purchase, MWh Budget Actual
Percent Difference, Actual vs. Budget 160,000 1
g -0.9%9%
Power Purchase Costs
Total EnergyI Budget Actual
Supply- UAMPS WAP A, Geo, etc $9,765,024
Transmission - SPPCo. $ 4 14,832
Scheduling - NCPA $1,043,766 g$993,050
WAPA cost/(credit) $75,348 $70,472
Total Power Purchase Cost $39,616 ($27,956)
$ Over/(Under) Budget $10,923,753 $102450,398
Percent Difference, Actual vs. Budget ($473,355)
-4.3%
Purchase Cost per MWh
Percent Difference, Actual vs. Budget $68.27 $
g -3.4%4%
Peak Load Information
District Peak Load, MW Budget Actual
Percent Difference, Actual vs. Budget 36 37.9
g 5.3%
5. RECOMMENDATION
Receive and comment on this report.
1�17�9
S he ollabaugh
Assistant General Manager Michael D. Holley
g General Ma
nager
ATTACHMENT A
Summary Historical Energy Usage Data
2005 Through 2010
Energy Purchases— MWh
Delivered to Transmission Total Bulk Year Substations Energy
S stem Losses 1 Purchased
2010
2009 153,677
2008
4,018 157,695
07 154,342
' 0
4 042
2006 5 158,384
2005 142,852
61619
Actual vs. Budgeted Energy Purchases— MWh
Year Actual Bud et o
2010 .........
o Difference
2009 o, oo .0
157,695 163 200
2008 '
3 4%
2007 158,384 .......
04 ...........
o
o.
156,963 0
2006 5 � 2
0 9/o
81.1- ... ........
2005 146,619 145 38o#
Energy Sales to Customers—MWh
Year Energy Sal Change for Previous
Sales Year,
/o
2010 54 5
009 146,875
2008 .............. ....
........
.........
1.0%
�3 ...........
2007 147,091 T-W."imm"
1 9/o
2006 ...........
5�
2005 136,339
Distribution System Losses—MWh
Year Losses 2 Losses as a
Ener Sales
2010 % of Sales
,�
2009 47, 47
6 802 146,875 0
' 4.6/o
2008 70 " ,�, �
2007 7,251 : o .........
2006 - 147,091 4.9%
2005 6,513 136,339
4.8/o
Notes:
1. Transmission System Losses: This is the amount of MW
District to pay by tariff as a loss. This is defined as a fix h that Sierra Pacific (NV Energy} requires the
2• Distribution System Losses: This is the differen fixed percentage of MWh delivered to the District.
ce between energy delivered to our substations and what
is sold to District customers. Historically this value has been abou
t 5 percent.