APCo Forecast: One Quarter Renewables by 2030

Image credit: Roanoke Times
Image credit: Roanoke Times

by James A. Bacon

While acknowledging regulatory and market uncertainties that could change its thinking, the Appalachian Power Company (APCo) plans to meet its projected demand growth over the next 15 years through solar power, wind power, battery storage, energy efficiency initiatives and demand-side management strategies, according to the company’s 2016 Integrated Resources Plan filed earlier this month. Renewable solar and wind energy sources would provide roughly one-quarter of APCo’s generating capacity by 2030, but the company would continue operating most of its existing fleet of coal- and natural gas-fired generators.

Roanoke-based APCo serves 526,000 customers in Virginia and another 431,000 in West Virginia and Tennessee, making it the second largest electric power producer serving Virginia.

Meeting the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, a sweeping overhaul of the electric power industry designed to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, will result in incremental costs to APCo of $300 million to $600 million, the company estimated. Several states have challenged the constitutionality of the plan, however, and U.S. Supreme Court action may not resolve the legal issues until next year.

APCo forecasts that electricity demand will increase at an average annual rate of 0.3% annually. For purposes of comparison, that is considerably lower than the 1.5% annual growth rate projected by Dominion Virginia Power, whose service territory is expected to experience faster population and economic growth, goosed by growth in power-hungry data centers in Northern Virginia. APCo also assumes that the installation of 60 MW (megawatts) of rooftop solar generation by homeowners and businesses will cut into electricity demand.

The APCo IRP describes what it calls its “Hybrid Plan” that “attempts to balance cost and other factors while meeting APCo’s peak load obligations.” Major elements of the plan include:

  • Adding 20 MW of large-scale solar energy by 2018, with subsequent additions reaching 590 MW by 2030.
  • Adding 300 MW wind energy by 2018, followed by future additions totaling 1,800 MW by 2030.
  • Implementing energy-efficiency programs reducing energy requirements by 203 MW by 2030.
  • Adding 20 MW of battery storage in 2025.
  • Retiring two natural gas-converted Clinch River generating units by 2026.

Over the 15-year planning horizon, the Hybrid Plan would reduce coal-fired assets from 61.2% of nameplate capacity to 47.8%, while wind and solar assets would climb from 5% to 24.8%. Because wind and solar generate power only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, actual energy output from renewables would be lower than the nameplate capacity, increasing from 2.7% to 18.5%.

Making the job trickier is the fact that APCo’s peak load demand occurs on winter mornings rather than on summer afternoons when Dominion and most other mid-Atlantic utilities experience their peaks. The early-morning winter peak demand makes solar energy a poor match. While rooftop solar will help reduce APCo’s total energy consumption, solar’s peak production mid-day in summer months “does not alleviate APCo’s overall distribution and transmission requirements as they relate to peak demand,” states the IRP.

Likewise, APCo finds itself an odd man out in the PJM regional transmission organization (RTO), which creates wholesale markets for the buying and selling of electricity. “The Company’s load profile does not align with that of PJM. APCo experiences its greatest demand during the winter, and hence is a winter-peaking entity. PJM as a whole operates as a summer-peaking RTO.” The result: APCo is short on energy in winter months.

Another challenge will be accommodating the expected surge in distributed generation (DG) in the form of rooftop solar. “Higher penetration of DG can potentially mask the true load on distribution circuits and stations if the instantaneous input of connected DG is not known, which can lead to underplanning for the load that must be served.” APCo foresees the need to install smart inverters in its distribution grid to control “voltage and other circuit parameters.”

Meanwhile, the company projects a need to upgrade its electric transmission grid (which handles larger, longer-distance electricity flows than local distribution lines) to interconnect with merchant generators providing up to 1,000 MW of additional capacity over the next several years.

To provide more flexibility, APCo will add 20 MW of battery storage. While batteries will not store enough electricity to meet wide swings in electricity demand for long periods of time, they can help smooth electricity output resulting from fluctuating solar and wind generation.

“This plan is essentially a snapshot of a process that is constantly under review based on changing market conditions, the economy, and the adoption of new products by consumers among many other variables,” said Charles Patton, Appalachian’s president and chief operating officer, in a press release. “We, as a company and an industry, continue to plan and adapt to the constant change of our markets so that we can remain healthy and deliver reliable power to our customers—now and in the future—at a reasonable price.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

14 responses to “APCo Forecast: One Quarter Renewables by 2030”

  1. Acbar Avatar

    The courses taken by APCo, described here, and DVP, described in the previous post and comments, are a striking contrast. Should the utility (like DVP) concentrate on reducing coal dependence and moving into natural gas generation, while dabbling in renewables, to get a little experience? Or should it (like APCo) jump into renewables and d.g. immediately in a big way (25% is aggressive) while postponing dealing with the CPP and historical coal dependence? And what about energy efficiency initiatives, which both utilities seem to ignore?

  2. TBill Avatar

    It’s really hard to interpret this info. Are we talking about inside the Virginia state lines? If so, I believe APCo is shutting most of their VA coal plants, so conceivably 25% renewables is easier in that case. 1800 MW of wind is impressive on the surface, but is that closer to 500 MW as far as utilization? Is that wind being constructed in Va or WVa? That’s why DEQ really need to give us integrated Va. state line numbers, assuming we stick to the CPP state boundary line management of CO2 proposal (which I am not sure I like the state line approach too much).

  3. Rowinguy Avatar
    Rowinguy

    Apco meets its load in Virginia largely through generation sited in West Virginia. The service area is entirely integrated via Apco’s extensive transmission network. Up to a couple of years ago, it could also rely on importing power from huge generators in Ohio also. The Ohio affiliate of AEP, Columbus Southern and Ohio Power, were “long” companies, that is, their owned generation exceeded their combined demand, largely due to the de-industrialization that occurred throughout the Rust Belt after the 1970s.

    Then, Ohio deregulated and those companies were forced to divest their generation to another new AEP affiliate and purchase that power back from it. Apco had once been one of 7 operating companies drawing from a big stock of mostly coal-fired generation (plus the Cook nuclear unit in Michigan) from Indiana, through Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia. The 7 company agreement was torn up and replaced by a 3 company agreement. (Apco, Kentucky Power and I&M, I believe)

    Several of those divested Ohio coal units are finding it hard to stay “in the money” with low gas prices setting the clearing price for capacity in PJM. The Ohio then adopted a regulatory support scheme for these AEP units (and also units formerly owned by FirstEnergy in that state) but FERC has quashed that effort as interfering with its oversight of the wholesale market. Now, AEP is calling for re-regulation in Ohio (and FE is standing right behind yelling encouragement). Stay tuned.

    There are some other PJM operating rules (which PJM with FERC’s blessing keeps changing up year to year) that also impose technical challenges to Apco as a winter-peaking company. It’s just in a tough place right at the moment.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I thought this interesting:

    ” AEP has come under criticism in many of the states they operate in for attacking rooftop solar. They have specifically attempted to halt distributed solar in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.[5][6]”

    5 “Charles Trump Sides With Power Companies Against Solar”. Morgan County USA. Retrieved February 18, 2015.

    6 “Solar-Killing Bill Boosts Indiana Lawmaker’s Financial Interests”. CleanTechnica. Retrieved February 18, 2015.

    Also, AEP and DR are roughly the same size in terms of customer base, employees, financials, etc

    ” AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10 percent of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central U.S. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11 percent of the electricity demand in Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the transmission system that covers much of Texas.”

    http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/10/4623221_13828170301787_0.png

    1. Acbar Avatar

      You know about Dominion’s operating subsidiaries in VA, WV and NC; here is a list of AEP’s subsidiaries:
      AEP Ohio
      AEP Texas
      Appalachian Power
      Indiana Michigan Power
      Kentucky Power
      Public Service Company of Oklahoma
      Southwestern Electric Power Company
      It’s apparent that these are in two geographic regions, as your map shows. The northeastern cluster is “old” AEP, and the more recent AEP acquisitions are in the Texas-Oklahoma region to the southwest.

      Just an observation about AEP: If you think DR has a conservative, controlling management style and a strong, even arrogant political presence in the states where it does business — wow, that pales alongside AEP’s “big gorilla of the Midwest” reputation! AEP (this was before its TX/OK expansion) was very, very reluctant to join any of the RTOs when FERC mandated them in the ’90s, but finally joined PJM when FERC demanded that AEP choose one. They still don’t like the loss of independence that comes from being in an RTO, and they tend to argue with PJM on things that others let slide. Not that PJM is always right, either, but in general AEP and its Midwest states end up fighting with, and losing to, the RTO and FERC over issues of “who’s in charge of planning and operating the grid, here.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The write-up in Wiki tracks what you are saying…

        I think the tendency for any entity like an electric utility, the transportation guys like VDOT, EPA, air traffic control, etc… is that they do what they must to keep things working …that the larger public is essentially clueless about what it takes to make it happen and the public and legislators can even be dangerous when they pass rules and laws with unintended consequences, etc…

        … leads to a mindset that tends to encourage arrogance and low opinions of the folks they “serve”… and who regulate them and probably with some justification.

        and without question – they have powerful and effective lobbying capabilities despite TMT and others “worries” about the greenies!

      2. Rowinguy Avatar
        Rowinguy

        AEP is in an RTO because FERC mandated it as a condition of the merger between AEP (the northern red area on Larry’s map) and the former Central & South West Power (the southern red area) back in the mid-00’s. Of course, Virginia’s restructuring law mandated that investor-owned utilities join such entities as well, including Apco.

        You are absolutely right about the 800 lb gorilla of the Midwest.

  5. […] Richmond Times-Dispatch) • Appalachian Power's new Integrated Resource Plan aims for 300 megawatts of wind-generated power by 2018. (Bacon's […]

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    in terms of projected electricity demand:

    Lower U.S. electricity demand growth would reduce fossil fuels’ projected generation share

    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.04.30/main.png

    In EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) Reference case, electricity generation is expected to increase by 29% between 2012 and 2040, at an average annual rate of 0.9%, to meet steadily increasing demand. In the recently released Low Electricity Demand case, total electricity use in 2040 is just 7% higher than 2012 levels. Under lower electricity demand growth, the share of generation from coal and natural gas declines compared with the Reference case, while the shares of generation from nuclear and renewables increase.

    note what happens to coal in both the high and low cases

    and note the percent of renewables…

  7. CleanAir&Water Avatar
    CleanAir&Water

    It is very confusing to look at figures for central generation only that , until recently, was also true with EIA figures. They did not include, or even have, the information for on-site generation. Here is the CitiGroup projection of our electric future ….

    “Combining the declining size of the electricity market in terms of volumes with the declining market share for conventional generation, we could see utilities in their current form suffer a 50%+ decline in their addressable market.”

    – 30-40% – Distributed resources (solar, CHP, wind) both for households and industry

    – 20-40% – Renewables (onshore wind, offshore wind, biomass, hydro) to constitute a big portion of centralized energy that could cover 30-40% of demand.

    – 20-40% – Conventional generation (nuclear, CCGTs, coal) to cover some of the base-load demand as well as provide back up to the system.”

    CitiGroup’s conclusion is based on their analysis of the changing structure of our utilities around the country, a structure and rate setting process incorporating distributed generation that has not occurred in Virginia, but which is inevitable.

    1. This is an excellent alternative view of our energy future. A great disadvantage of the IRP process is that the utility must present its plans in isolation of what is or could be happening around it. Energy efficiency and third-party distributed generation could have a huge impact on load growth and the amount of generation needed from the utility but it is not discussed by the applicant.

      Where and how does the SCC take this into consideration? Must they wait for direction from the GA? Other states are moving forward on revising their vision for their state’s energy future. What are we waiting for in Virginia? The utilities can’t do it on their own. There has to be a public policy initiative to get the discussion going.

  8. TBill Avatar

    Part of the promise of green energy is job creation. Of course, we are hoping that job creation is in Virginia…I don’t know if there is some way we can ask that Virginians be allowed to participate in wind projects in WV, MD, or PA, where the better wind resources are… along the Eastern Continental Divide up there along I-76 PA Turnpike and I-68 and down thru WV.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    not sure why we’d tire job creation to advances in energy any more than we would for other industries – though. If we did that – many new evolving technologies would be questioned on their job creation numbers.

    that would be sorta like saying that LED light bulbs sold in Va would be not a good thing unless those bulbs were made in Virginia…

    probably not a good premise… especially if Va continues to lag behind in providing 21st century education to it’s k-12 grads.

    Our job in Virginia should not demand that we be given jobs from 21st century technology – but instead that we are committed to competing successfully for our share of those jobs.

  10. It turns out that renewables do contribute to local job creation, much more so than conventional generation. Distributed generation such as solar is very labor intensive for its installation. Being distributed you get a moderate amount of jobs spread over the state for a long time instead of the boom/bust situation with building a new gas-fired plant.

    Energy efficiency is not only the cheapest source of generation but also the greatest source of local employment.

    I would think it would be an advantage for APCo to experience their peak at a different time of year than others in this region. They would not compete for the highest cost generating resources as the others do during the summer peak. More lower cost generation would be available within PJM in the Southeast during the winter than during the summer. Although the winter peak is not a huge amount less than the summer peak here.

Leave a Reply