Ready to participate in the ISO-NE Forward Capacity Market? Or, need to understand the FCM as part of your development strategy, solicitation response preparation, or acquisition? Power Advisory can help you navigate the regions’ capacity market. With changes such as CASPR and the forward nature of the market, now is the time to understand the FCM.
Over the last two days BOEM auctioned three leases offshore Massachusetts to Vineyard Wind, Mayflower Wind, and Equinor Wind. Vineyard Wind is a joint venture of Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, with an existing Massachusetts lease and a contract for an 800 MW project with the Massachusetts electric distribution companies (EDCs). Mayflower Wind Energy LLC is an affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. and EDP Renewables; it is the first position in the US OSW market for both companies. Equinor is a Norwegian energy developer that holds the rights to the only existing BOEM lease offshore New York. This sale attracted historic attention from 19 qualified parties and 11 bidders. At the end of 32 rounds the total acquisition fee was $405.1 million ($135.1 million Vineyard Wind and $135 million for the other two winning parties).
Competitive Implications of ATLW-4A
Overall this should be a positive development for the competitiveness of the New England and broader Northeast OSW market. It introduces two new competitors to the region and strengthens Vineyard Wind’s position as an incumbent developer. Equinor represents a new competitor to the Southern New England OSW market. Equinor wouldn’t have been able to compete effectively in the Southern New England OSW market from its New York lease given the distance of this lease from New England and the associated incremental cost of transmission and the marginally worse wind resource in its New York WEA. While the primary opportunity will be for long-term contracts with the Southern New England EDCs, the projects from these lease areas should be able to compete in future New York procurements (which has a target of 2,400 MW by 2030) and possibly New Jersey (3,500 MW by 2030).
The interest of Equinor and Shell indicates the similarities of offshore wind and oil/gas development, both require significant engineering capability and careful management of project logistics, with significant capital requirements over an extended period of time before production begins.
The pricing relative to previous lease sales is a strong indication of market interest and the promise offered by the Northeastern OSW market. Adding two new competitors to the Southern New England market will enhance the competitiveness of solicitations. However, with one element of the evaluation criteria in the various OSW RFPs the project’s underlying maturity it may take a while for consumers to see the benefits of this increased competition.
Comparison to Atlantic Wind Lease Sales
Prior to ATLW-4A there have been 7 lease sales for 11 areas from North Carolina to Massachusetts. The average acquisition fee was $6.7 million. One of the first Massachusetts lease areas was acquired by OffshoreMW LLC (now Vineyard Wind) for as little as $150,197. The next highest sale after today’s results is the New York lease sale of OCS-A 0512 to Equinor in 2016 for a total acquisition fee of $42.5 million from 33 rounds of bidding by 6 total participants. Even in comparison to the New York sale the result of ATLW-4A is more than seven times greater.
 Shell did qualify for the North Carolina lease sale (ATLW-7) in 2017 but did participate in the auction.
Over the last year major commitments have been made with respect to the US offshore wind (OSW) market. From only 30 MW operating, approximately 2,000 MW has been contracted and a cumulative +10 GW of installed capacity is now expected by the early 2030s. The growing interest in OSW has been concentrated in the Atlantic, particularly the Northeast which has the strongest state policies for OSW. An indicative schedule of this development by state is presented in the figure below. Power Advisory then provides a high-level review of the procurement processes in New England, New York, and New Jersey as the primary markets, representing about 80% of this total.
As part of the 2016 Act to Promote Energy Diversity, Massachusetts established a procurement target of 1,600 MW of offshore wind by 2030. The first solicitation for OSW proposals, referred to as the 2017 Section 83C RFP, resulted in the selection of 800 MW from Vineyard Wind in May 2018. The contracts for this project are currently before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities with a real levelized price for energy and RECs of $64.97 per MWh (2017$). On July 31st, An Act to Advance Clean Energy was passed, instructing a cost benefit analysis to be completed for an additional 1,600 MW of offshore wind by 2035 and specified that the Department of Energy Resources “may require said additional solicitation and procurements.” Governor Baker, who was recently reelected, signed a pledge to complete this study during the campaign. Given the compelling economics of the long-term contracts secured through the first Massachusetts OSW solicitation we believe that this effectively doubles the Commonwealth’s OSW goal to 3.2 GW by 2035 without the need for additional legislative authority.
In May, Rhode Island selected 400 MW from Deepwater Wind’s Revolution Wind Project. Deepwater Wind has entered into contract negotiations with National Grid. An executed contract for energy and RECs is expected to be filed with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission by the end the year.
Connecticut also selected 200 MW from Deepwater Wind’s Revolution Wind Project. The wind farm will be part of the same project selected by Rhode Island, but will deliver electricity directly to the state via a separate export cable. On September 14th, Connecticut closed an RFP for 12 TWh of zero-carbon energy which is said to have received offshore wind proposals. The evaluation phase will be completed in Q4 2018/Q1 2019. Additional opportunities for OSW contracts from Connecticut are uncertain.
The southern New England states have each approached OSW with long-term contracts for bundled energy and RECs, consistent with contracting practice for other clean energy resources in the region. The retention of capacity value by developers provides an incentive for suppliers to maximize that value through efficient operating practices. The PPA requires the seller to participate in the Forward Capacity Market so that this value can be considered by ISO-NE and ultimately realized by customers.
Evaluation of OSW proposals in New England has focused on economic benefits. For example, the evaluation procedure used in the 2017 Section 83C RFP was based on a 75/25 split between economic benefits and qualitative considerations. Direct economic benefits were assessed based on comparing the proposal price and any required transmission upgrade costs with its direct economic benefits as measured on the basis of the net present value of energy (by LMP) and the value of Class I RECs. Four indirect proposal benefits of wholesale energy price savings, RPS compliance cost savings, incremental greenhouse gas reduction compliance savings, and economic impact of resource winter firmness were also considered. Qualitative considerations included: (1) siting, permitting, and project schedule risks; (2) reliability benefits; (3) other benefits, costs and project risks; (4) environmental impacts from siting; and (5) economic development benefits to the state.
Governor Cuomo established a goal of 2,400 MW of OSW by 2030 in 2017. Offshore wind is a key component of the state’s Clean Energy Standard (CES) of 50% clean energy by 2030. The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) 2015 South Fork RFP that was open to all resources resulted in the selection of Deepwater’s 97 MW South Fork Wind Farm. This project is expected to come online in 2022 and counts towards the state’s 2.4 GW goal.
NYSERDA released a final RFP to solicit 800 MW or more of offshore wind today (November 8, 2018). Bids are due February 14, 2019. The remainder of the 2,400 MW goal (Phase II) will be procured at a later date. New York has also begun securing stakeholder input on the appropriate transmission development framework for Phase II.
NYSERDA is employing a scoring system that considers price and non-price factors, with each project scored according to a 100-point scale based on three criteria:
- Project Viability: 10 points – Non-Price Evaluation
- New York Economic Benefits: 20 points – Non-Price Evaluation
- Offer Strike Prices: 70 points – Price Evaluation
Project viability is assessed in terms of whether the proposed project can reasonably be expected to be in service on or before the proposed Commercial Operation Date. To maximize the score received, proposers must demonstrate that project development plans are mature, and technically and logistically feasible, that they have sufficient experience, expertise, and financial resources to execute the development plans in a commercially reasonable and timely manner. New York Economic Benefits are measured in terms of three considerations: (1) project-specific spending and job creation in New York State; (2) investment in offshore wind-related supply chain and infrastructure development in New York State; and (3) activities that provide opportunities for the New York offshore wind supply chain, workforce, and research and development.
Offer strike prices are assessed in terms of a: (1) an Index OREC price and; (2) a Fixed OREC price. The Index OREC price will vary monthly based on the value of Index OREC Strike Price specified minus the monthly Reference Energy Price and the monthly Reference Capacity Price. The Fixed OREC price is based on the fixed price specified by the proposer. In essence, the Index OREC price is a contract for difference that considers relevant energy and capacity prices, thereby providing a market price hedge that should support more attractive financing terms than the Fixed OREC. The Index OREC price will be given a weight of 0.9 and the fixed OREC price a weight of 0.1 to establish the weighted strike price for each proposal. Either OREC strike price option can be chosen at NYSERDA’s discretion. NYSERDA’s decision will be based upon its projection of the relative costs of the Fixed ORECs and Index ORECs compared to the relative price risks of the Fixed ORECs and Index ORECs over the life of the contract.
If the Fixed OREC price option is chosen, the OREC price will remain for the entirety of the contact length, 20 to 25 years. If the Index OREC is chosen, the OREC will remain for the entirety of the contract unless the Index OREC price is invalidated.
The Offshore Wind Economic Development Act authorized the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to establish an OREC program in 2010. After almost eight years of stalled implementation and development under the previous administration, newly sworn in Governor Murphy signed Executive Order #8 (EO8) on January 31st, 2018. E08 directed all New Jersey agencies with responsibilities under the OWEDA to fully implement it in order to meet a goal of obtaining 3,500 MW from OSW by 2030.
On September 20, 2018 New Jersey opened its first “application” for 1,100 MW of OSW. This will be the nation’s largest OSW solicitation to date. The application window will close on December 28, 2018, with the BPU required to act on the proposals by July 1st, 2019. The goal of the compressed procurement timeline is to maximize the ability of developers to capture the expiring federal ITC and increase the attendant economic benefits that can be realized by the state from the development of the regional industry. Governor Murphy has also directed a target of 2020 and 2022 for two additional BPU solicitations of 1,200 MW to reach the overall goal of 3,500 MW. Identifying these second and third large, near-term procurements is also intended to induce the OSW supply chain to locate in New Jersey.
Separately, EDF Renewables and Fisherman’s Energy have submitted an OREC application to the BPU for approval of the 24 MW Nautilus OSW farm with a planned COD in 2020.
The OREC structure in New Jersey differs from the typical Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs (ex. RECs, SRECs), which provide an additional source of revenue beyond energy and capacity. The BPU’s OREC Funding Mechanism is largely based on the procurement of a bundled energy, environmental attribute and capacity product. The use of an OREC ultimately adds complexity with respect to the administration of the ORECs and risk to OSW developers (e.g., variances between actual and forecast OSW output) and in Power Advisory’s opinion could be more simply administered with stronger performance incentives with a PPA that procured energy and environmental attributes. However, this is the framework that was legislatively directed and is expected to be used for all three upcoming procurements.
Rather that issue a formal request for proposals the New Jersey BPU issued Guidelines for applications for the sale of ORECs. These guidelines identify the requirements for applications and outline the six criteria that the BPU will use to rank proposals. These six criteria are:
(1) OREC Purchase Price, which can be fixed or escalating;
(2) Economic impacts, which includes, the number of jobs created, increases in wages, taxes receipts and state gross product for each MW of capacity constructed;
(3) Ratepayer impacts, which considers the average increase in residential and commercial customer bills along with the timing of any rate impacts;
(4) Environmental impacts, which includes the net reductions of pollutants for each MWh generated and the feasibility and strength of the applicant’s plan to minimize environmental impacts created by project construction and operation;
(5) The strength of guarantees for economic impacts, which considers all measures proposed to assure that claimed benefits will materialize as well as plans for maximizing revenue from the sales of energy, capacity and ancillary services; and
(6) Likelihood of successful commercial operation, which includes feasibility of project timelines, permitting plans, equipment and labor supply plans and the current progress displayed in achieving these plans.
There’s very little transparency regarding the evaluation process and how tradeoffs regarding these six criteria will be assessed. The Guidelines indicate that “ranking and weighting of the six criteria by the BPU will reflect the goals of the solicitation especially as stated in the Governor’s Executive Order No. 8.” Based on our experience we believe that this lack of detail regarding how these criteria as well as tradeoffs among these criteria will be assessed, may hamper the ability of proponents to craft proposals that best satisfy New Jersey’s objectives.
Power Advisory would welcome the opportunity to assist clients in understanding the opportunities presented by the emerging US offshore wind industry.
A PDF of this update is available here.
 Note the schedule represents anticipated commercial operation date versus when the capacity is expected to be solicited. For Massachusetts, Vineyard Wind was originally proposed as two 400 MW phases coming into service in late 2021 and 2022, but in its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Vineyard Wind announced that it would construct the full 800 MW simultaneously and commission the project in mid-2022.
 This price escalates at 2.5% per annum and the project owner retains revenues from ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity market.
 On October 8th Ørsted announced that it was acquiring Deepwater Wind and its portfolio of 5 PPAs representing 810 MW for $510 million.
 An assumption must be made regarding the UCAP Production Factor so that the project nameplate capacity can be converted to UCAP. NYSERDA allows a proponent to use a default UCAP Production Factor of 38% consistent with the NYISO’s Installed Capacity Manual or to specify a project-specific value. These values will be constant throughout the contract term. The ability to specify an alternative UCAP Production Factor presents an opportunity for proponents to change the risk/reward profile and as such warrants analysis.
 Guidelines for Application Submission for Proposed Offshore Wind Facilities
Yesterday, Ørsted A/S (Ørsted) announced that it agreed to acquire Deepwater Wind (Deepwater) from D.E. Shaw & Co. LP for $510 million. With this acquisition Ørsted, who was unsuccessful in the various New England competitive procurement processes, will get access to Deepwater’s 5 PPAs and 810 MW contracted project development portfolio. The transaction is subject to review by US competition authorities, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Given the nascent state of the US OSW industry the acquisition of one of the US industry leaders by the world’s largest OSW project developer may raise some competitive concerns, particularly when the lease holdings of the combined company are considered in several relevant geographic markets.
Specifically, Ørsted will have ownership interests in two of the three existing BOEM leases in the Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) through its Bay State Wind partnership with Eversource Energy and its acquisition of Deepwater. In addition, Ørsted will have development rights to two of the three existing leases off the coast of New Jersey as result of its Ocean Wind project and with the acquisition of Deepwater’s 50% interest in the Garden State Offshore Energy project, a joint venture with Public Service Electric & Gas that holds the rights to a BOEM lease off the coast of Delaware and New Jersey. (See Figure 1 below.)
A critical issue with respect to the assessment of the competitive implications of mergers is defining the market, which considers the relevant products and geographic definition of the market. The geographic definition of the market considers the ability of competitors to compete effectively with the merged entity recognizing that there is a cost to accessing a more distant market (e.g., for OSW the cost of undersea transmission cables or transmission service).
The Rhode Island/Massachusetts WEAs offer more attractive wind regimes than the New York (NY) or New Jersey (NJ) WEAs, suggesting that it may be difficult for leaseholders in NY or NU WEAs (e.g., Equinor) to compete effectively with the RI/MA leaseholders. The competitiveness of the New England OSW market will be enhanced when BOEM issues the two additional MA leases that are scheduled for auction in early 2019. However, the ability of these new leaseholders to compete in the forthcoming Massachusetts 83C OSW RFP may be constrained by the relative immaturity of the corresponding projects and the fact that Massachusetts OSW RFPs typically considered the development status of projects in the evaluation and project scoring.
Figure 1: Ørsted US Offshore Wind Portfolio
A PDF version of this memo is available here.
Last week, NYSERDA issued a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit 200 MW to 800 MW of offshore wind with proposals due in the Winter 2019. The draft RFP is in response to New York State’s Offshore Wind Master Plan that encourages the development of 2,400 MW of offshore wind by 2030. The offshore wind projects will be procured in two phases to reach the 2,400 MW goal. Phase 1 entails procuring Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates (ORECs) associated with approximately 800 MW of offshore wind. The New York Public Service Commission Offshore Wind Order authorizing NYSERDA to undertake this procurement further permits NYSERDA to award more than 800 MW in this first round of the Phase 1 solicitation if sufficient attractive offers are received. The Phase 2 procurement will build on Phase 1 framework and seek to procure the remaining offshore wind energy to reach the 2,400 MW goal.
NYSERDA is employing a scoring system that considers price and non-price factors, with each project scored according to a 100-point scale based on three criteria:
- Project Viability: 10 points – Non-Price Evaluation
- New York Economic Benefits: 20 points – Non-Price Evaluation
- Offer Strike Prices: 70 points – Price Evaluation
The non-price evaluation components will be evaluated by a scoring committee. Project viability will be assessed in terms of whether the proposed project can reasonably be expected to be in service on or before the proposed Commercial Operation Date. To maximize the score received, proposers must demonstrate that project development plans are mature, and technically and logistically feasible, that they have sufficient experience, expertise, and financial resources to execute the development plans in a commercially reasonable and timely manner. New York Economic Benefits will be measured in terms of three considerations: (1) project-specific spending and job creation in New York State; (2) investment in offshore wind-related supply chain and infrastructure development in New York State; and (3) activities that provide opportunities for the New York offshore wind supply chain, workforce, and research and development.
Offer strike prices will be assessed in terms of a: (1) an index OREC price and; (2) a fixed OREC price. The index OREC price will vary monthly based on the value of Index OREC Strike Price specified minus the monthly Reference Energy Price and the monthly Reference Capacity Price. The fixed OREC price is based on the fixed price specified by the proposer. In essence, the index OREC price is a contract for difference that considers relevant energy and capacity prices. The index OREC price will be given a weight of 0.9 and the fixed OREC price a weight of 0.1 to establish the weighted strike price for each proposal. Either OREC strike price option can be chosen at NYSERDA’s discretion. NYSERDA’s decision will be based upon its projection of the relative costs of the Fixed ORECs and Index ORECs over the life of the contract compared to the relative price risks of the Fixed ORECs and Index ORECs over the life of the contract.
If the fixed OREC price option is chosen, the OREC price will remain for the entirety of the contact length. If the index OREC is chosen, the OREC will remain for the entirety of the contract unless the Index OREC price is invalidated.
This draft RFP will be open to public comment until Friday, October 5th, 2018. Subsequently, NYSERDA will review the public comments; refine the draft RFP; and publish a final RFP in Q4 of 2018.
A PDF version of this update is available here.
On September 13, Canadian Utilities Limited (CU), a subsidiary of ATCO, announced that it would be exploring strategic alternatives for its Canadian electricity generation business. Canadian Utilities Limited is engaged in electricity (generation, distribution, and transmission), pipelines and liquids (natural gas transmission, distribution and infrastructure development), energy storage and industrial water solutions, and retail energy (electricity and natural gas retail sales). The company has 5,200 employees and assets of $21 billion.
CU owns and operates 2,391 MW across six Canadian jurisdictions, with the majority located in Alberta. The geographic composition of these generation assets and their fuel type are indicated in the pie charts below. An overview of the individual generation assets is provided in the table below.
Power Advisory would welcome the opportunity to assist clients in understanding the opportunities presented by Canadian Utilities Limited’s announcement and other potential generation acquisitions across North America.
A PDF version of this note is available here.
John Dalton, President, Carson Robers Consultant, Robie Webster Jr., Researcher, Power Advisory
Earlier today, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released a Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) for the previously unleased commercial lease areas, OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503, offshore Massachusetts. These lease areas represent the most immediate leasing opportunity for those who are interested in entering the Northeast offshore wind market, where states have already made commitments to procure almost 5,000 MW.
Today’s PSN outlines the proposed ATLW-4A sale, initiates a 60-day comment period, and will be followed by a public seminar (date to-be-announced, expected in the coming month). To participate in the lease sale your organization must be qualified as an eligible bidder by BOEM. All bidder qualification materials must be postmarked no later than the end of the public comment period – June 11, 2018.
Opportunities for Long-Term Contracts
As established in the 2016 An Act to Promote Energy Diversity and under Section 83C, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a mandate to procure 1,600 MW of offshore wind by June 30, 2027. The state issued the first offshore wind RFP for 20-year Power Purchase Agreements in July 2017. The winner of Tranche 1, a project in the range of 200-800 MW, will be announced at the end of April or early May. The parties that acquire OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503 are expected to be able to participate in subsequent tranches of Massachusetts’ OSW procurement.
Three factors,1) the capabilities of existing offshore transmission technologies, 2) relative proximity of these lease areas to other states, and 3) allowance of delivery to an adjacent control area that has been included in clean energy procurements to date, suggest that the opportunity for a long-term PPA extends beyond Massachusetts’ procurements to the rest of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. In fact, Connecticut has already sought proposals from the incumbent Massachusetts OSW area lease holders and NYSERDA has been clear in its intention for those lease holders to participate in their upcoming procurements.
Figure 1 below illustrates the existing and proposed federal lease areas and labels the known state procurement targets by 2030 (Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey). Rhode Island has announced a goal of 1,000 MW of clean energy of which 400 MW are expected to be procured this year. Offshore wind is included in this goal, but there is not a clear procurement target in the style of Massachusetts 83C.
Figure 1: US Atlantic Offshore Wind Projects, Lease Areas, and Current Procurement Targets
*National Grid has a transmission right-of-way for the operating Block Island Wind Farm. The inclusion of this ROW on the map does not indicate that National Grid is an OSW lease holder.
While a portion of these targets are anticipated to be committed before the ATLW-4A auction takes place and a winning bidder for OCS-A 0502 or OCS-A 0503 is in a position to submit a bid, opportunities for long-term contracts will remain under these targets. Furthermore, given the regional interest in OSW development, the region’s aggressive decarbonization goals, and anticipated cost reductions for OSW that are likely to allow it to compete directly with other clean energy resources additional opportunities for long-term contracts are anticipated.
Power Advisory would welcome the opportunity to help clients assess the opportunity presented by upcoming BOEM lease sales and to support North American offshore wind development activities.
On June 2, 2017 the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) issued the 2017 Renewable Energy Standard Request for Proposals (RESRFP17-1). The RFP was the first issued under the state’s Clean Energy Standard. The Clean Energy Standard requires that 50% of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030, representing about a doubling of the state’s renewable energy requirements. The standard puts an obligation on retail electricity suppliers to purchase increasing amounts of renewable energy to supply their customers. To assists these retailers in meeting their obligations, NYSERDA is required to support the development of large-scale renewable projects by issuing periodic requests for proposals (RFPs) to enter into long-term contracts (i.e., up to 20 years) with renewable energy developers. These RFPs provide for the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs), rather than bundled energy and RECs.
The 2017 Renewable Energy Request for Proposals resulted in agreements to develop 26 new large-scale renewable projects. Of the 26 projects selected, 22 are solar, 3 are wind, and one is a hydroelectric project. In addition, one of the selected wind farms will include an energy storage component. The 26 projects will add 1,383 MW of capacity and generate 3.2 TWh per year, providing about 2% of the 50% 2030 target. The weighted average price for the Tier 1 RECs purchased was reported as $21.71. A map of the selected projects is included below:
April 3, 2018
Last Thursday, Exelon Generation (Exelon) announced that it had filed with ISO-New England to retire the Mystic Generating Station’s Units 7, 8, 9, and the Jet unit on June 1, 2022. Exelon noted “absent any regulatory reforms to properly value reliability and regional fuel security, these units will not participate in the Forward Capacity Auction scheduled for February 2019.” Mystic offers over 2,000 MW of capacity, making it the largest generating station in Massachusetts and one of the largest in New England. ISO-New England reported that Exelon submitted delisted bids in the Forward Capacity Auction that was conducted in February.
On March 17th at a New England Restructuring Roundtable Meeting, Gordon Van Weile, President & CEO of ISO-New England, opened the door to such regulatory reforms when discussing the fuel security analysis that the ISO had completed. His presentation noted that the “The ISO can take action through its market design and tariff to procure ‘insurance’ to alleviate, but not eliminate, fuel-security risk.” More specific references to possible changes were offered in his formal remarks. In its Press Release announcing the proposed retirement, Exelon indicated that “ISO-NE recently stated that it may propose interim and long-term market rule changes to address system resiliency in light of significant reliability risks identified in ISO-NE’s January 2018 fuel security report.”
The significance of these retirements is exacerbated by the unique reliability attributes of these units. First, they are located in the Northeast Massachusetts-Boston area, which has been found to be an import-constrained zone in the past and would likely be determined to be again with the retirement of this capacity. Second while Mystic 8 and 9 are natural gas-fired, they are not connected to the interstate natural gas transmission pipeline network that serves New England. They are directly connected to the Everett LNG terminal. Therefore, these two CCGTs are not subject to the same natural gas supply constraints that affect the rest of ISO-New England’s natural gas fleet. This fact was recognized in ISO-NE’s fuel security analysis.
Interestingly, at this same time Exelon also disclosed that it would be purchasing the LNG terminal from ENGIE North America. The ISO-New England fuel security analysis demonstrated the importance of the continued operation of the Everett LNG terminal to New England electricity supply reliability. With a sustainable sendout of about .4 Bcf per day, after the volumes delivered to Mystic 8 and 9 are netted out, the Everett LNG terminal can provide about 9% of New England’s interstate delivery capability (excluding the output of the local LNG and propane storage facilities operated by the region’s gas distribution utilities.)
While one might question why Exelon would purchase the LNG terminal if it planned to retire two generating units that utilize about 30 to 40% of its throughput, with the purchase of the LNG terminal Exelon has purchased a natural gas fuel price hedge. The purchase of the Everett LNG Terminal enables Exelon to secure the world-wide price for LNG for natural gas supplies for Mystic 8 and 9. This will be beneficial during winter high demand periods, but could result in higher fuel prices in other periods unless Exelon is able to secure contracts with LNG suppliers that are based on an Algonquin City Gate (New England natural gas pricing point) netback price. Conceivably, Exelon has elected to forgo the modest operating margins in many of these other hours to lock in greater margins during winter peak periods.
Also contributing to the significance of the loss of this capacity is that Mystic 7 is dual-fueled (natural gas and residual oil) with a winter capacity rating of 560 MW. The importance of dual-fuel capability to maintaining reliability was highlighted this winter, where in a two-week period New England oil-fired generation regularly represented upwards of 35% of the regional fuel mix.
ISO-NE will need to evaluate the reliability impacts of these proposed retirements, but cannot prevent the units from retiring. This announcement would add to the growing list of retirements, which by the early 2020s would represent (with the addition of this 2,000 MW) about 23% New England’s generation capacity.
 The current price of natural gas for Mystic 8 and 9 is reported be pegged to the Algonquin City Gate price so that these units are generally ensured access to natural gas, but at a market price.
 Reported prices for LNG deliveries to the Everett Terminal in 2017 ranged from $3.03/MMBtu to $4.00/MMBtu from April to October 2017. US DOE, LNG Monthly, January 2018
On January 26th, NextEra Energy executives announced that the company is considering the sale of its Canadian assets. John Ketchum, Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer for NextEra Energy, stated during an Q4 and full-year 2017 earnings call that the company is exploring the sale of its Canadian portfolio to recycle capital back into its U.S. assets, which are expected to benefit from recent corporate tax reform. NextEra is continuing to evaluate this opportunity and will provide updates regarding this potential sale in the coming months.
Operating in four provinces, NextEra Energy’s Canadian assets include two solar projects (40 MW) and nine wind projects (675 MW). All but one of these projects have long-term contracts with the respective purchasing entities in each province.
Figure 1: NextEra Energy Canadian Project Locations
NextEra Energy Canadian Portfolio – Solar
NextEra Energy Canadian Portfolio – Wind
It is unclear to what extent there is a tax advantage for NextEra to go ahead with the sale and when it might occur. Interested parties would benefit from taking a detailed look at each of the potentially available assets to evaluate their fit with their existing generation portfolio. In particular, the 7 solar and wind projects located in Ontario may be attractive given the number of years remaining in their contract terms. Any participant in Alberta and Ontario’s wholesale markets must consider the implications of the ongoing market design and evolution processes in these jurisdictions to assess the implications on future revenue opportunities.
With offices in Toronto and Calgary Power Advisory follows Canadian electricity markets closely and would welcome the opportunity to help clients assess this potential project acquisition opportunity and to evaluate other generation assets across North America.
John Dalton, President, Carson Robers, Consultant and Caitlin Laber, Researcher, Power Advisory LLC
A PDF version of this report is available here.