A Unit-by-Unit Cost Analysis of PacifiCorps Coal-Fired Generation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Unit-by-Unit Cost Analysis of PacifiCorp’s Coal-Fired Generation Fleet By Energy Strategies Commissioned by The Sierra Club

Coal-fired plants with PacifiCorp ownership interest. Coal-fired units in Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Montana. PacifiCorp sells electricity in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and California.

Coal production accounts for Utah uses the majority Industrial customers across the more than 60% of PacifiCorp’s of PacifiCorp’s power, followed region use the majority of energy production. by Oregon and Wyoming. PacifiCorp’s power. PacifiCorp assumes that almost all of its coal units will operate ● From 2009-2016, PacifiCorp’s O&M costs for coal plants went up by 53 %. through 2030. ● Overall costs of operating PacifiCorp’s coal plants through PacifiCorp plans to retire 1,800 MW by 2030, less than ⅓ of its currently planned retirement is $11.7 billion . fleet.

Gigawatt (GW) GW of GW of coal slated can power up non-economic coal to be retired to 750,000 retired nationwide nationwide from homes. through mid-2018 2018-2022 of US coal with negative margins 2012-2017 (BNEF) Bids received by Xcel (Colorado) for new wind

● Using publicly available data, this ● The study was conducted by ● Customers, regulators and analysis compares the present stakeholders are questioning the independent energy value of each coal unit’s future of PacifiCorp’s coal plants. consulting firm Energy operating and capital costs Strategies. against alternative energy ● PacifiCorp is an unusually options. coal-dependent utility in the region. ● The study was commissioned ● Examines market purchases, by the Sierra Club . ● Coal is a significant driver of solar, and wind alternatives. customer rates. ● Report does not examine ● PacifiCorp’s planning process does capacity replacement, not review coal plant economics. transmission expansion, or fixed fuel contracts. ● Report calls for greater scrutiny of the utility’s slow pace of replacing coal with cheaper power.

Coal v. Market Energy These units cost more than market energy Costly environmental potential savings coal units run at a controls still required from displacing higher cost than at Hunter 1 & 2, coal with market energy over Huntington 1 & 2, and market-based their anticipated lives. Jim Bridger 1 & 2. energy.

Coal v. Solar Energy Hunter 2 becomes more expensive than solar with environmental control costs potential savings from coal units run at a higher displacing coal with of PacifiCorp energy cost than solar energy over solar energy. comes from solar. their anticipated lives.

Coal v. Wind Energy potential savings from coal units run at a higher of PacifiCorp energy displacing coal with cost than wind energy over comes from wind. wind energy. their anticipated lives.

The cost of PacifiCorp’s coal units are increasing while the cost of renewable energy continues to fall. of PacifiCorp coal units run at a higher cost when compared to solar and market purchases. of 22 coal units run at a higher cost when compared to wind, regardless of required pollution controls. This reality poses a fundamental question. Is PacifiCorp acting in the best interest of its customers when it holds on to coal plants and fails to choose increasingly least-cost and less risky resources on a forward-going basis?