Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Appalachian Coal Colombia, Chile, Declines, Ends Peru Integrate FX Argus Assessments Markets
October 2013
Summary
Platts to Reflect Ex-duty Cargoes in CIF NWE Jet Fuel Assessments Platts to Change US Atlantic Coast Gas to 15RVP Platts to Reduce Portland Bunker Volumes IHS Releases Next Generation of IHS AccuMap CME Postpones Crude Oil Delisting Argus Changes Differential Bases for 6 Ukrainian Gasoil Diesel Products Argus to Change Coal Spark Spread Assessments Platts Suspends EIA Oil Market Data Due to Shutdown CME To Use OPIS for Fuel Contracts to Replace Shutdown Data
Editors Letter.4 Whenever a discussion develops around the power industry, the thought of storage is not something that immediately comes to mind. Nevertheless, it has been recently drawing more attention from regulators and newsmakers. Interestingly enough, storage, as a solution, is being viewed as a panacea for seemingly opposing, at least from an environmental perspective, sources of power generation: renewables and coal. Power Markets .....................................................................5
NGX Adds Texas Physical Power Clearing Services EEX Introduces French Futures Platts Launches UK NBP Intra-day, N2EX Power Auction Assessments SGX to Launch First Asian Electricity Futures Market Platts to End M2M-Power Assessments Compression Cycle Eliminates 4300 EU Energy Swaps, Forwards Platts Refocuses Spanish Power Assessments FEBEG, Belpex to Develop Belgian Reserve Capacity Board
Back to Summary
October 2013
InDepth35 In Search of Equilibrium: Growth of Capacity and Transmission in the NYISO By Karen Hung & Ian Mathieson
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) was founded in December of 1999, taking over from the New York Power Pool and following the nationwide unbundling of electricity supply and delivery in the nineties. It is the responsibility of the NYISO to ensure reliability of power generation, and transmission across New York State. Furthermore, the NYISO was founded in a period of high electricity prices and it was a hope that a more competitive marketplace would help to reduce the cost of electricity for end users.
Back to Summary
October 2013
Editors Letter
Storage for Carbon and Storage for Energy Intended to Make Air Cleaner
Whenever a discussion develops around the power industry, the thought of storage is not something that immediately comes to mind. Nevertheless, it has been recently drawing more attention from regulators and newsmakers. Interestingly enough, storage, as a solution, is being viewed as a panacea for seemingly opposing, at least from an environmental perspective, sources of power generation: renewables and coal. Storage solutions for both sectors, renewable and coal-fired power generation, are different in concept and implementation but are expected to provide sought after backing for these resources in light of growing environmental concerns. Coal has been at the top of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) agenda for a while. The drive to reduce the impact from coal on the environment has resulted in revised standards, new rules, and regulations, which are all viewed by the industry as a slow and imminent death of coal. The most recent EPAs proposal to limit carbon emissions from new fossil-fueled generators stirred up quite a loud roar of disappointment from coal-based generators. EPA proposed different standards for natural gas and coal-fed facilities. For natural gas-fired stationary combustion units, the proposed limits are based on the size of the units: 1,000 lb CO2/MWh for larger units (>850 mmBtu/hr) and 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for smaller units (850 mmBtu/hr). For coal, these limits are based on the compliance period that the unit selects: 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for those generators that select it to be over a 12-operating month period or 1,000-1,050 lb CO2/MWh for a period over 84 operating months. According to the EPAs report on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for 2012, the power sector remained the top culprit that accounted for about 67% of direct CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions and contributes 2,090 million metric tons CO2e to the U.S. carbon pollution. The top three electricity generation emitters reported between about 18 and 21 million metric tons of total direct GHG emissions in 2012. No surprise that the reaction from the coal-fired power units was very antagonistic with the arguments directed at the virtually unachievable goals given the level of current technology. According to the industry reps, these standards will likely result in the phasing out of the coal-based generation. Some see salvation in Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), which is, in most cases, an underground storage for emissions. Others claim that this technology is too new, too expensive and unproven. Serious concerns remain with the potential CO2 leakage. In effect, construction of CCS projects has proven to be challenging: many proposed ones have been cancelled or delayed. Those that are currently in operation were constructed to support mainly natural gas or oil recovery and processing. The power industrys pockets are not as deep as those of fossil fuel moguls; this makes power generators mostly reliant on government support. Many expectations are held with the Department of Energys draft loan guarantee solicitation released in July 2013, which avails of US$8 billion for CCS projects. Unfortunately, the history of the governmental support leaves many skeptical. Remember FutureGen, the first coal-fired zeroemissions power plant to produce 275 MW of electricity? Its CCS portion was expected to be funded through the private-federal partnership; however, after the costs started to get closer to $2 billion, the government retrieved its support. There are other partially completed CCS projects intended to be integrated with power units (Southern Company's Kemper County Energy Facility and SaskPowers Boundary Dam are both over 75% complete). Lets just hope that they will not follow the fate of the former poster child for CCS designed to support clean coal-based power generation. In effect, according to EPA, few, if any, new coal-fired [electric generating units (EGUs)] would be built in this decade and those that are built would include CCS. This leaves a very warm and fuzzy feeling of a hope for CCS technology. Whether liked by the industry or not, CCS seems to remain the main option for those entities that intend to invest in coal-fired power generation. Another type of storage intended to solve a different set of concerns of the power sector is energy storage. Unlike CCS that will extend the life of coal-based generation, energy storages main focus in on renewables. The main objective of energy storage is to address intermitte ncy of renewable generation and solve related concerns, such as mitigation of peak demand, deferral or even elimination of investments in transmission and distribution. No doubt, the key objective is to reduce CO2 emissions. On October 17, 2013, California PUC released the decision that establishes energy storage targets of 1,325 MW for the top three (PG&E, SCE and SDG&E) by 2020. The procurement targets are set for each IOU for every two years starting 2014. Storage capacity is expected to be solicited from the market, which means one thing - there will be another type of market established in California, a storage capacity market. This means that once again, California is leading the pack by inventing, experimenting, and innovating. I am almost confident that this experiment will not end up being anything like the case of California Power Exchange but concerns, of course, remain with the design of the program and its potential price tag. Some parties point out the prematurity of the program since the requirements for additional resources are not defined or even known. Whether liked or not, the new market is coming to California. Along with the new market comes new pricing, new market players, new mechanisms, new technologies, and, no doubt, new complaints.
Olga Gorstenko
Editor Olga Gorstenko Phone: 778-296-4183 Email: olga@ze.com Advertising & Vendor Relationships Bruce Colquhoun Phone: 604-790-3299 Email: bruce.c@ze.com ZEMA Suite Inquiries Bruce Colquhoun Phone: 604-790-3299 Email: bruce.c@ze.com
Have an idea for an article or would like to contribute to an upcoming issue? Write to us at datawatch@ze.com. To access previous Back to Summary 4 issues of ZE DataWatch, go to datawatch.ze.com
October 2013
Power Markets
Natural Gas
Back to Summary
October 2013
Power Markets
Back to Summary
October 2013
XZ3
XZ3
XZ3
E01
E01
NY-EO
XZ4
XZ4
XZ4
EP1
EP1
NY-EP
XZ
XZ
XZ
XZ6
XZ6
XZ6
CME Adds Fuel Oil Barges Fob Rdam Mini Weekly Spread Futures
On August 5, 2013, CME Group announced the addition of European 3.5% Fuel Oil Barges Fob Rdam (Platts) Mini Weekly Spread Futures, effective August 12, 2013. The futures are financially settled, and are traded on Globex, ClearPort, and NXPIT. Description European 3.5% Fuel Oil Barges Fob Rdam (Platts) Mini Weekly Spread Futures Clearing EMW Globex EMW SPAN EMW
ZZ6
ZZ6
ZZ6
ZNT
ZNT
ZNT
Z5P
Z5P
Z5P
ZTA
ZTA
ZTA
Back to Summary
October 2013
CME Adds Singapore 380cst Fuel Oil Mini Weekly Spread Futures
On August 5, 2013, CME Group announced the addition of Singapore 380cst Fuel Oil (Platts) Mini Weekly spread futures, effective August 12, 2013. The futures are financially settled, and are traded on Globex, ClearPort, and NXPIT. Description Singapore 380cst Fuel Oil (Platts) Mini Weekly Spread Singapore 180cst Fuel Oil (Platts) Mini Weekly Spread Clearing SMW SDM Globex SMW SDM SPAN SMW SDM
Back to Summary
October 2013
Argus Adds API 3 fob Richards Bay 5500 NAR Index Assessment
Effective October 4, 2013, Argus announced it will add the API 3 fob Richards Bay 5500 NAR index (Price Type 4) assessment to its list of reports. PA Code PA0012924 Description Coal API 3 index (fob Richards Bay 5500)
Back to Summary
October 2013
10
Back to Summary
October 2013
11
Back to Summary
October 2013
12
Back to Summary
October 2013
The same products will be available with a new differential basis from the start dates June 27, 2013 (PA0007417, PA0007821, and PA0007822) and April 24, 2012 (PA0007823, PA0007824, and PA0007825).
13
Back to Summary
October 2013
14
Back to Summary
October 2013
15
Back to Summary
October 2013
16
Back to Summary
October 2013
SM4
MC4
SM4
SM5
MC5
SM5
OC4
NC4
OC4
OC5
NC5
OC5
October 2013
18
Back to Summary
October 2013
The bar graph below sketched in ZEMA shows the historical prices of Argus Biodiesel RME FOB Rdam Swap Contract (NYMEX Future Settlements):
19
Back to Summary
October 2013
The following equivalent codes will continue to display methanol ex-works east China domestic Yuan/t prices: PA Code PA0011995 PA0011996 Description Methanol ex-works east China domestic Yuan/t (Price type: 1 & 2) Methanol ex-works east China domestic $/t (Price type: 1 & 2)
PA0011988
PA0012554
PA0012560
CME Changes Kansas City Hard Red Winter Wheat from KCB to CBT
On October 10, 2013, CME announced that the Kansas City Hard Red Winter Wheat Contract will have its Designated Contract Market (DCM) switched from Kansas City Board of Trade (KCB) to Chicago Board of Trade (CBT). The changes apply to seven wheat assessments; for the full list of affected products, see the original CME Update. 20
Back to Summary
October 2013
21
Back to Summary
October 2013
22
Back to Summary
October 2013
Other Matters
Back to Summary
October 2013
Other Matters
October 2013
Other Matters
October 2013
Other Matters
DG2
DJ-UBS CI Index 2 Month Forward Swaps DJ-UBS CI Index 3 Month Forward Swaps Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index Swaps
DG3
DGS
26
Back to Summary
October 2013
Other Matters
27
Back to Summary
October 2013
After a quarter of Western Texas Intermediates premium over Brent, the European benchmark rallied on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) to lead WTI in October again. While the WTI Prompt-Month Contract dropped by 5%, Brent prices went up by 1%. This was enough to send the Brent-WTI spread from $2 USD/bbl WTIs premium to Brent in the previous month to $4 USD/bbl WTIs discount to Brent this month, a net change of $6 USD/bbl in the spread over a period of four weeks. This is the widest gap since June 2013. The NYMEX WTI Prompt-Month contract fell to $102 USD/bbl (the lowest in more than three months) as U.S. crude stockpiles were 3.8 million barrels above last year at this time 1 according to American Petroleum Institute. Meanwhile, a survey done by Bloomberg suggested that the production 1 supplies climbed up in the same period as well. While WTI fell due to the abundance of crude supply, Brent prices were supported by global supply problems mostly in North Africa. Geopolitical and supply-demand concerns, along with the depreciating U.S. dollar against the Euro, pushed the European benchmark to $106 USD/bbl. In October, Libya was struggling to return to full export capacity after labor strikes 2 shut down all of the nation's largest export terminals. Moreover, Nigerian outputs have been repeatedly hit by 2 theft, which supported the Brent as well. Brent received further support from the continuing gridlock between union workers and the owner of the Grangemouth Refinery in Scotland in addition to deterioration in relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia (over the U.S. inaction in Syria). The Brent-WTI spread is likely to widen more in the next month. Graphs created with ZEMA.
In October, crude oil futures for both Brent and WTI dropped on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Brent futures fell as suggested in the last months DataWatch analysis to below $110 USD/bbl in October, whereas WTI settled just above $102 USD/bbl. Brent for December delivery traded at $108 USD/bbl whereas Texas light sweet futures dropped to be traded around $101 USD/bbl for the same month delivery. The premium of NYMEX Brent over WTI widened further this month to $7 USD/bbl, as WTI fell more sharply than its European counterpart. WTI has been under pressure recently as government data showed an increase of 24.2 million barrels (6.8%) over the past five weeks in U.S. crude supplies stockpiles. Record oil supply and stockpiles in the U.S. are trouncing demand 1 affected by slow economic growth. The U.S. fiscal standoff was luckily resolved in mid-October (for the time being at least), which removed some pressure from the market. Brent crude deepened mostly due to strong U.S. supply and indications that the Federal Reserve may start tapering its US$85 billion-per-month bond-buying program. The impact of supply disruptions across the Middle East and North Africa on one side and the rise in North American production on the other affected the markets short-term outlook. Although there is optimism over the international talks with Iran to lift sanctions that have curbed oil exports from the Persian Gulf producer, there is no significant sign of the production increase in near future.
28
Back to Summary
October 2013
On the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), North American natural gas spot prices varied slightly compared to the last month in all four major hubs: Chicago Citygates, Henry Hub, New York Transco Zone 6, and PG&E Citygate in California. From September to October (week ending October 25, 2013), the monthly average prices rose in Chicago Citygates and Henry Hub by 2% to $3.83 USD/MMBtu and $3.70 USD/MMBtu respectively. Also, the spot prices fell to $3.98 USD/MMBtu in PG&E Citygate and to $3.69 USD/MMBtu in Trans Z6. For the week ending October 24, 2013, EIAs Natural Gas Weekly Update reported temperatures across the U.S. haven't been low enough to trigger demand for natural gas to heat homes and businesses. Weather outlooks typically drive prices this time of year as furnaces burn natural gas to heat 1 homes, offices, and other buildings. According to the EIA, about 50% of all households in the U.S. use gas as their primary heating source. However, more seasonably cool weather particularly in Chicago area supported the prices. Strong natural gas supply (storage and production near a record-high pace) overshadowed the demand for most of the 1 month, a trend that has been going on since April 2013.
On the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), Henry Hub natural gas futures dropped by 1% in October compared to September 2013. From this month to the previous, the future prices at Henry Hub for the year ahead dropped on average by $0.03 USD/MMbtu to $3.86 USD/MMbtu, whereas natural gas futures for November 2013 to March 2014 delivery declined $0.04 USD/MMbtu to $3.85 USD/MMbtu. Natural gas futures fell after the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) report showed a glut of heating fuel in the middle of October amid weak demand and high 1 production levels. According to EIA, working natural gas in storage increased to 3,741 Bcf by the end of third week of 2 October, 2.1% above the five-year average. On October 17, 2013, FERC approved the start of service on November 1 for two natural gas projects (New York-New Jersey Expansion project and TGPs Northeast Upgrade Project) that would provide almost 1.0 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) to consumers in the New York/New Jersey region. This increase of gas flow to the northeast region will secure the supply; pipeline constraints had led to price spikes during 2 periods of peak winter demand previously. For now, supplies are more than adequate to meet even the coldest winter heating demand.
October 2013
From September to October, the average monthly temperature dropped in New York City by four degrees Celsius to 16C, in Sacramento by three degrees to 18C, in Raleigh by five degrees to 17C, and in Chicago by eight degrees to 12C. Although the temperature has dropped in all the four cities due to seasonality, this years October is warmer than the two-year average. Comparing October 2013 temperatures to the past two-year average, the temperature is higher in New York City by five degrees Celsius, in Chicago by three, in Raleigh by four, and in Sacramento by one. In October, Chicago was the coldest among the four cities, while experiencing the largest temperature fluctuations. Data from AccuWeather showed the temperature was as high as 22C on the fifth day of October, while it almost dropped to 0C th on the 24 of the month.
On the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), electricity day-ahead prices dipped in all four reported North American markets in October. From September to October, the day-ahead monthly average prices dropped in ISO-NE by 13% to $40 USD/MWh, in PJM North by 27% to $34 USD/MWh, in NYISO by 23% to $45 USD/MWh, and in CAISO-SP15 by 13% to $43 USD/MWh. The mild weather in the U.S. could be the main reason for the seasonally weak demand that also led to a slight fall of electricity prices this month. However, NYISO market participants ended up paying more than $5 USD/MWh in October 2013 compared to the last October.
October 2013
Data Source National Grid NEISO NEISO NEISO NEISO NEISO NEISO NOAA Fuel Transmission Transmission Others Electricity Others Others Others Others Electricity Electricity Electricity Oil Others Oil Fuel Fuel Oil Oil Electricity Others Natural Gas Swissgrid 31 PJM PJM PJM RIM Intelligence RTE France SCB SNL SPP IMM SutronWIN NOAA NOAA NOS NOS NOS NYISO NYISO OPIS OPIS PJM PJM PJM PJM
Report Name Forecast Demands (SISR03) Ancillary Hour Dataset Hourly Wholesale Load Cost Market Ancillary Hourly ARR Market Ancillary Hourly Capacity Market Ancillary Hourly LFR Market Ancillary Hourly NCPC LSCPR Freezing Level Forecasts Precipitation Forecasts Temperature Forecasts Closing Prices - Futures Closing Prices - Options Closing Prices - Spot Installed Capacity: Locational Calculations Installed Capacity: Transmission District Loads Closing Biolite Closing Net Black Start Revenue Requirements InSchedule - EDC Loss Factor NITS Revenue Requirements and Rates Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Revenue Requirements RPM Daily Zonal Scaling Factors Schedule 9 Rates Schedule 9 Settlement Rates Japan Domestic Spot Imbalance Settlement Price Chicago Platts Settles SNL - Natural Gas Indexes Energy Dispatch Set Real Time Station Hydromet Balance Energy Price
Commodity Natural Gas Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Weather Weather Weather Freight Freight Freight Electricity Electricity Others Others Electricity Transmission Others Electricity
Electricity Electricity Electricity Others Electricity Oil Natural Gas Electricity Hydrology Energy
Back to Summary
October 2013
Data Source Swissgrid Terna U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury Xcel Energy
Report Name Balance Energy Price Values Market Ancillary Services Treasury Bill Auction Results Treasury Bill Auction Results - Futures Generation Plants Meter Data
Members benefit from one common Trayport gas trading platform with access to all spot and derivatives market products offered by the two exchanges for the German, French and Dutch market areas. Furthermore, spread products between these market areas are tradable on the same trading platform. For more information: www.pegastrading.com About EEX: The European Energy Exchange (EEX) is the leading European energy exchange. It develops, operates and connects secure, liquid and transparent markets for energy and related products on which power, natural gas, CO2 emission allowances, coal and guarantees of origin are traded. Clearing and settlement of all trading transactions are provided by the clearing house European Commodity Clearing AG (ECC). EEX is a member of Eurex Group. For more information: www.eex.com About Powernext: Powernext SA manages complementary, transparent and anonymous energy markets. Powernext Gas Spot and Powernext Gas Futures were launched on 26 November 2008 in order to hedge volume and price risks for natural gas in France and in the Netherlands. Powernext manages the National Registry for electricity guarantees of origin in France since 1 May 2013. Powernext owns 50 % in EPEX SPOT and 20 % in EEX Power Derivatives. For more information: www.powernext.com
Others
Electricity
PEGAS: Successful launch of PEG Sud natural gas Front Month contract
Paris, Leipzig 3 October 2013 Following the request of its members, PEGAS has launched on 1st October a Front Month contract on PEG Sud together with its related cleared geographical PEG Sud / PEG Nord spread supported by GDF Suez and Total Gas and Power as Market Makers. The first PEG Sud November 2013 transaction was concluded at 10:15 for a volume of 720 MWh at 29.70 Euros/MWh. The first PEG Sud / PEG Nord November 2013 spread transaction was completed a few seconds later for a volume of 720 MWh at 1.90 /MWh. Bid and Ask spreads, as tight as 0.05 /MWh have been observed on the platform during the trading session. A total volume of 79 200 MWh was traded on this launch date on the PEG Sud Futures market segment, including 57 600 MWh for the PEG Sud / PEG Nord spread. Jean-Franois Conil-Lacoste, CEO of Powernext, comments: PEGAS is further extending its product offering with this new PEG Sud Front Month contract, responding to the needs of its members through the fast implementation of new products and features. The entire natural gas offering of EEX and Powernext is available for trading on the PEGAS platform launched in May 2013, including spot and derivatives products for the market areas GASPOOL, TTF, NCG, PEG Nord and PEG Sud as well as spot products for the PEG TIGF market area. About PEGAS Pan-European Gas Cooperation: PEGAS is a cooperation between the European Energy Exchange (EEX) and Powernext. In the framework of this cooperation, both companies combine their natural gas market activities to create a pan-European gas offering.
32
Back to Summary
October 2013
Day-Ahead markets In September 2013, power trading on the Day-Ahead auctions on EPEX SPOT accounted for a total of 24,196,474 MWh (September 2012: 25,144,130 MWh) and can be broken down as follows: Monthly volume previous year MWh DE/AT 18,649,183 19,502,886 FR 4,160,443 4,426,740 CH 1,386,848 1,214,504 ELIX European Electricity Index * Peak excl. weekend Intraday markets On the EPEX SPOT Intraday markets, a total volume of 1,804,450 MWh was traded in September 2013 (September 2012: 1,374,857 MWh). Areas Monthly volume MWh 1,551,826 179,451 73,173 Monthly volume previous year MWh 1,228,029* 146,828 0** Areas Monthly volume MWh Price monthly average (Base / Peak*) Euro/MWh 41.71 / 54.27 43.30 / 58.19 44.07 / 57.52 41.19 / 55.11
DE/AT FR CH
* without Austrian market, which was launched in October 2012 // ** Swiss market launched in June 2013 In September, cross-border trades represented 22% of the total Intraday volume. Volume in 15-Minute contracts amounted to 248,820 MWh. In September, they represented 15.6% of the volume traded on the German and Swiss Intraday markets. *** The European Power Exchange EPEX SPOT SE operates the power spot markets for France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland (Day-Ahead and Intraday). Together these countries account for more than one third of the European power consumption. EPEX SPOT is a European company (Societas Europaea) based in Paris with a branch in Leipzig. 255 TWh were traded on EPEX SPOTs power markets in the first nine months of 2013.
33
Back to Summary
October 2013
Indices
Spot Market Index Name Sep 2013 Index Value (min. / max. in EUR/MWh)
PEG Sud
TTF
EEX Daily Reference Price EEX Daily Reference Price Powernext Gas Spot DAPPowernext Gas Spot EOD Powernext Gas Spot DAPPowernext Gas Spot EOD EEX Daily Reference Price
Index Name
25.679 / 27.592 25.875 / 27.133 26.01 / 27.76 26.15 / 27.70 26.82 / 29.95 26.54 / 30.67 25.494 / 27.049
Derivatives Market
Germany
TTF
EGIX (European Gas Index) Monthly Average EGIX Monthly Average EGIX Monthly Average Powernext Gas Futures Monthly Index Powernext Gas Futures Monthly Index
26.680
26.54
GASPOOL NCG PEG Nord PEG Sud PEG TIGF TTF Total
34
Back to Summary
October 2013
InDepth
New York City and Long Island Over the life of the NYISO, the NYC and LI zones (J and K) on average have accounted for 46.5% which follows since as of the 2010 census, NYC (including LI) makes up 42.2% of the iv state population. This region is particularly difficult to serve given its isolated geographic location and high population density. Figure 1 shows the percentage of load required by the NYC and LI zones versus the remainder of the state. Since mid-2005, these two population heavy zones have outpaced the rest of the state, requiring over 50% of the load for the whole state during peak summer months. These two regions have affected the development of the power markets as the NYISO tries to ensure reliability in the region while keeping prices low.
October 2013
InDepth
Further, these two regions constitute the two localities within the New York Capacity Auction where the Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirements are imposed. The Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirements are determined by resource adequacy studies and compel load serving entities (LSEs) to procure a percentage of their vi capacity in these regions. The Impact on Prices The constraints in this region have had an impact on pricing. Figure 2 shows the percentage of electricity price represented by congestion on average for NYC and LI versus the rest of the NYISO zones. On a monthly average the percentage of congestion for the NYC and LI zones rarely drops below 10% of the LMP. This is in contrast to the rest of the state, where generation is rich and there are few transmission constraints the congestion cost is rarely over 10% of the LMP.
Figure 4. Cost of electricity in NYC and LI versus the rest of the state including cost of generation, loss and congestion. Graph created with ZEMA. According to the draft of NYISOs 2013 Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study, NYC and LI have consistently had the highest congestion prices of all the 11 zones; in 2012, New York City saw a total of $261 million in congestion costs and Long Island totaled $377 million. In contrast, Hudson Valleywhich has the third highest congestion costs in New vii York Stateonly totaled $39 million. The Need for Transmission Capacity In the last decade, much of the focus of the NYISO has been toward increasing capacity to serve the load demands of NYC and LI and toward demand response programs to reduce load at peak serving times. The NYISOs creation of capacity obligations as well as capacity markets in NYC, LI, and ROS (Rest of State) incentivized the building of over 10,000 MW in viii new generating capacity from 2000 to 2012, with 80% of ix new generation built right in New York City. All the while, the economic recession as well as the growth of energy efficiency programs has reduced the load on New Yorks electricity grid. In 2012, total power usage fell to 162,942 GWh from 163,330 GWh in 2011, and peak demand x fell from 33,865 MW in 2011 to 32,439 MW in 2012. Even as the retirement of old power plants has reduced New Yorks in-state generation resources from 39,570 MW in 2012 xi to 37,925 MW in 2013, they are still more than sufficient to meet projected demand, and the NYISO estimates that there xii will be no need to build new generating capacity until 2019. Nevertheless, as is evident in Figure 4, the surplus supply of electricity in New York State has not reduced the load pockets in NYC and LI, and LBMP remains high in NYC and LI in comparison to the rest of New York State. This is mainly because these regions depend heavily on power from upstate and out-of-state generation, but transmission constraints xiii limit transfer levels to about 3000 MW. Transmission is also impacted by widespread degradation in voltage performance [] caused by load growth and unit xiv retirements. 36
Back to Summary
Figure 2. NYISO Congestion as a percentage of LMP from the NYISO Real Time Pricing report. Graph created with ZEMA. Similar to congestion, largely due to the location and geographic restrictions in the region, the cost of losses in NYC and LI are on average double that of the rest of the state (see Figure 3). When this is all taken into account to look at the overall price of electricity between NYC and the rest of the state it shows a consistent gap.
Figure 3. % of LMP contributed by loss in NYC and LI versus the rest of the state. Graph created with ZEMA.
October 2013
InDepth
capacity that would move power from upstate to downstate; there were also recommendations to replace and upgrade xx some of New Yorks aging transmission lines. NYISOs State Transmission Assessment and Reliability Study (STARS) estimated that, in the next 30 years, the state will require $25 billion in investment to replace 4700 miles of transmission and another $2 billion to upgrade the transmission system to xxi ease congestion and increase transfer capability. Looking Forward New Yorks transmission infrastructure is integral to the health of their power grid, and an efficient and resilient grid will become more important as more power plants are retired. Initiatives are already underway in the NYISO to develop smart grid infrastructure, green the grid, broaden xxii the regional markets, and expand interregional planning. While the NYISOs current projection of annual growth in electricity use from now until 2023 is very modestonly xxiii 0.47%, the possible retirement of the Indian Point Nuclear Plantwhich supplies 30% of New York Citys electricity, as well as other power plants whose life cycles will be determined by upcoming, stricter EPA emission rules, means that generation resources will need to be either found or built to replace that lost generation capacity when those xxiv power plants are decommissioned. The possibility of severe weather events becoming more common has also highlighted the need to weatherize New Yorks electricity grid. Superstorm Sandy caused power outages all along the eastern coast of New York State, cutting off power to over 900,000 customers on Long Island and over 750,000 customers in the Con Edison service territory. Over 90 transmission facility encountered outages, and all ties to xxv neighboring ISOs were out of service. The disaster highlighted the necessity of strengthening the N YISOs ties to other ISOs in the region to better coordinate efforts in, not only emergency response, but also grid efficiencies and resilience. Hence, the NYISOs coordination with neighboring control areas such as PJM, IESO, Hydro Quebec, and ISO-NE; this is part of their Broader Regional Markets initiative to address limitations that currently exist where the markets and systems connect, be they market inefficiencies or electrical xxvi grid inefficiencies. The ability to buy cheaper power from a neighboring grid rather than expensive local power, or shortening the time commitment of moving power in and out of New York State, are just some of the improvements that can help the NYISO ensure reliable transmission and generation resources and potentially reduce costs for consumers. By Potomac Economics estimations, these improvements alone could provide New York with regional xxvii savings of $193 million a year.
For reference, around 1,990 MW is supplied upstate to meet downstate power needs, but during extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves, the downstate regions could xv require a supply of nearly 2,800 MW. The NYISO has tried to address these transmission constraints by building more transmission lines; over 1600 MW of transmission capability has been added since 2000, most of which allow electricity to be imported from neighboring xvi electricity markets into the downstate region. Even so, projected congestion costs for NYC is $353 million in 2022, up from $283 million in 2013, and congestion costs for LI will xvii increase from $165 million to $269 million, suggesting that more aggressive measures are needed to enhance transmission capacity in New York State before wholesale electricity prices in NYC and LI will decrease to levels comparable with the rest of the state.
Figure 5. New transmission added between 2000-2012 shows how the new cables all connect to the New York City and Long Island regions in an effort to address congestion there. Source: Power Trends 2013, NYISO. Currently, there exists an NYISO Tariff to help provide cost recovery and cost allocation for transmission projects whose capital costs exceed $25 million, whose cost savings exceed the project cost measured over the first ten years from the proposed commercial operation date, and whose xviii beneficiaries are over 80% in favor of the project. FERC has also ordered the NYISO to develop a process to create new capacity zones to address transmission constraints, and just this April, the NYISO submitted a proposal to create a capacity zone encompassing the Lower xix Hudson Valley and New York City. Additionally, Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled the New York Energy Highway initiative in January of 2012 to modernize New Yorks energy infrastructure. The eventual blueprint included a proposal to build 1000 MW of transmission 37
Back to Summary
October 2013
InDepth
Particularly as electricity generation in the Northeast becomes more dependent on natural gas, and gas supplies in the region need to be more carefully scheduled during the heating months from November to March, more tightly intertwined regional coordination will likely become standard, and it will be interesting to see how NYISO transmission and capacity will evolve with its neighboring control areas.
http://www.nyiso.com/public/flipbooks/nyiso_lightingtheway/lightingthewa y/files/nyiso_lighitngtheway_final_nov2009.pdf
ii
xiv
2009 Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study, NYISO, p. 19. Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 17. Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 10. CARIS 2013 Draft Report, NYISO, p. 34. CARIS 2013 Draft Report, NYISO, p. 56.
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/pgrhc.pdf
xix
Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 27. Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 29.
xx
xxi
Cordaro, Matthew. New Yorks Transmission Challenges and Opportunities: An Overview, NY AREA, p. 4.
xxii
NYISOs 2013 Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study, NYISO, Table 5-1: Historic Demand$ Congestion by Zone 2008-2012.
viii
xxiii
xxiv
ix
Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 9. Power Trends 2013 By the Numbers, NYISO.
Cordaro, Matthew. New Yorks Transmission Challenges and Opportunities: An Overview, NY AREA, p. 5.
xxv
Power Trends 2013, NYISO, p. 34. NYISO: Planning for the FutureBroader Regional Markets NYISO: Broader Regional Markets Fact Sheet
xxvi xi
xii
xiii
About ZE PowerGroup Inc. ZE is an experienced software and strategic consulting firm that combines energy industry expertise with advanced software development capability. The company possesses deep industry knowledge and comprehensive operational experience. ZE is the developer of the ZEMA Suite, a sophisticated Enterprise Data Management and Analysis solution built to meet the specific challenges of energy and commodity market participants. About ZEMA ZEMA is an enterprise data management suite designed for collecting data and performing complex analysis. ZEMA replaces fragmented data collection and analysis processes with a sophisticated, unified and automated data management system. Each ZEMA component can perform as an independent product; this means greater flexibility when integrating ZEMA into your organization. ZEMA is consistently ranked #1 for preferred system, #1 for ease of system integration, and #1 for customer service. ZEMA is easy to use and backed by our support team around the clock. Disclaimer ZE DataWatch is a report, comprised of data updates and expectations for energy and commodity markets and powered by ZEMA. The information contained in the ZE DataWatch is for information purposes only. Although ZE PowerGroup believes the information in this report to be correct and attempts to keep the information current, ZE PowerGroup does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information. Information in this report is not intended to provide financial, legal, accounting, or tax advice and should not be relied upon in that regard. ZE PowerGroup is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for direct, indirect, special or consequential damages, howsoever caused, arising out of the use of this report.
38
Back to Summary