Transcript Outline

CPS Energy Water Use
Louisa Eclarinal, P.G.
December 18, 2013
CATEE
Outline
1. CPS Energy Overview
2. Water Resources and Requirements
3. Water Supply Management and Strategies
– Historical –visionary shift from GW to reuse
– Fleet diversification to include renewables and demand
efficiency
– Water conservation and drought management measures
4. Challenges
2
Overview
• Largest municipally-owned electric and gas utility in the U.S.
•
•
•
•
•
Oldest energy utility in Texas – Founded in 1860
717,000 electric customers
323,000 natural gas customers
3,500 employees
Nearly $10B in assets with highest credit ratings among municipal
utilities is the U.S.
• $250 million annual return to owner, the City of San Antonio
• Outstanding customer satisfaction track record
• Lowest electric rates of all major cities in the U.S. – 2011 Residential
rates averaged about 9¢/kwh
J.D. Power Survey – Southern Region
2009
2010
2011
2012
Electric Residential Customers
1st
3rd
2nd
1st
Gas Residential Customers
1st
1st
1st
1st
3
Generation Capacity
• Leon Creek – 184 MW Net (Gas)
• V. H. Braunig/Arthur von Rosenberg/CT – 1549 MW Net (Gas)
• O. W. Sommers/J. T. Deely – 1670 MW Net (Gas & Coal)
• J.K. Spruce 1&2 – 1340 MW Net (Coal)
• Rio Nogales - 750 MW Net (Gas)-Guadalupe County
• STP 1&2 – 1080 MW Net (Nuclear)-Bay City
Total Generation Capacity – 6573 MW Net
4
Renewable Energy
Commercial Operation
Wind
1059 MW
Solar
44.3 MW
Landfill Gas
9.6 MW
Total
1113 MW
Sweetwater 3 & 4 Wind
Desert Sky Wind
Development / Construction
Landfill Gas
4 MW
Solar
400 MW
Total
404 MW
Covel Gardens Landfill Gas
Blue Wing Solar
Dos Rios & Somerset Solar
Cedro Hill Wind
Papalote Creek Wind
Penascal Wind
Los Vientos Wind
Generation Portfolio
2012 Generation
Wind
Demand 9.0%
Reduction
1.1%
Solar
0.2%
Projected Generation 2020
Landfill Gas
0.2%
Wind
10.5%
Purch Pwr
1.2%
Gas
19.3%
Solar
2.9%
Demand
Reduction
2.9%
Landfill Gas
0.3% Purch Pwr
0.4%
Gas
22.4%
Nuclear
25.2%
Nuclear
24.5%
Low & Non-emittive: 56%
Coal
43.8%
Low & Non-emittive: 68%
Traditional sources = 89.5%
Renewable sources = 9.4%
Demand Reduction = 1.1%
Traditional sources = 83.4%
Renewable sources = 13.7%
Demand Reduction = 2.9%
CY 2012 Generation ~ 29.4 TWh
CY 2020 Generation ~ 32.4 TWh
Coal
36.2%
6
Withdrawal vs Consumption
Withdrawal
Total 1995 US Fresh Water
Withdrawal
13% Domestic
Consumption
Total 1995 US Fresh Water
Consumption
1%
Commercial
3% Livestock
39%
Thermoelectric
4% Industrial
81% Irrigation
39% Irrigation
7%
Domestic
1% Mining
3%
Thermoelectric
1% Commercial
1% Mining
6% Industrial
1% Livestock
7
Power Plant Water Usage
2011Texas Water Use Survey*
State of Texas:
Livestock
2%
Irrigation 61%
Municipal
28%
Mining
Steam 1%
Electric 2%
6%
Manufacturing
*Source: Texas Water Development Board
http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/ReportServerExt/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?
%2fWU%2fSumFinal_RegionReport&rs:Command=Render
Retrieved12/4/2013
• Vast majority of water in
electric generation process
is cycled through power
plant for cooling and
returned to reservoir
• 2% of statewide water use;
an important but relatively
small amount on a
statewide basis
8
How Electricity is Made - Spruce
9
CPS Energy Water Supplies
CPS Energy:
• Bexar County Plants: 16 power generating units
located at 4 Bexar Co. sites
• Braunig and Calaveras Power Stations 60% of total generating capacity
- Water Supplies
• Edwards Aquifer GW permit-3046 acre-ft /yr (Leon Creek)
• Surface water rights-99,000 acre ft/yr
Braunig -12,000 acre-ft surface water from San Antonio River
Calaveras -27,000 acre-ft surface water from Calaveras Creek watershed
60,000 acre-ft surface water and treated sewage effluent from
the San Antonio River
• SAWS reuse water contract 50,000 acre-ft /yr (Calaveras)
• Potable Water (SAWS and East Central for Braunig and Calaveras)
10
Historical Water Management
Strategies
• Post 1950s Drought of Record: Visionary shift from
Edwards GW to reuse water
• 1967 Ordinance 35228 “providing for use of city’s
sewage effluent for cooling water purposes”
• Pioneer use of treated effluent for power plant
cooling
• Secure supply with ACRD contract in late 90s$2M/year
11
Braunig Lake Construction
1964
12
Braunig Lake Power Station (2012)1966, 1968, 1970, 1999, 2010
13
Calaveras Lake Construction
1967
14
Calaveras Lake (2012) –
1972, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1992, 2010
1515
Edwards Aquifer Water Use
CPS Energy Strategic Move to Reuse 1962-2012
Total Edwards Aquifer Water Saved 983,365 acre-ft (320
billion gallons)
Thousands (acre-feet)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Groundwater (Acre-FT)
Dry years: 2005-2006, 2009, 2011
Reuse/SA River Diversion (Acre-FT)
16
Growth in Edwards Aquifer
Water Use (1940-2011)
600
20
Regional Edwards use consists of Bexar, Comal, Hays, Medina and Uvalde Counties
18
500
200
12
Total Regional Edwards Water Use
10
8
6
City of SA Edwards Water Use
4
100
CPS ENERGY EDWARDS USE
CPS Lake Water/Reuse
SA EDWARDS WATER USE
REGIONAL EDWARDS USE
Net Generation (Bexar County Plants)
2010
2008
2
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
1958
1956
1954
1952
1950
1948
1946
1944
1942
1940
1986
CPS Energy Lake / Reuse Water
CPS Energy Edwards Use
0
Terawatt hr (TWh)
300
14
Thousands (acre-feet)
400
16
0
17
Water Management
Strategies
• Strategic Water Resources Plan
• SAWS Reuse Contract (Increased to 50K/year
in 2011)
• Renewables –increased to 15% of capacity by
2020
• Demand reduction- 771MW
• Water Conservation
• Drought Management
18
Water Demand Projection
CPS Energy Water Intensity
acre-feet
50,000
gallons/MWh
600
Summit COD
45,000
JTDeely Retirment
500
40,000
35,000
400
30,000
300
25,000
20,000
200
15,000
10,000
100
5,000
-
-
2008 2010 2012
2015
Water Intensity
2020
2025
2030
Total Acre-Feet
19
Renewables and STEP
Water Savings
Cumulative Historical Water Savings
30,000
26,342
25,000
acre-feet
20,000
CPS STEP (2005-2012)
15,000
CPS Renewables (2002-2012)
10,000
5,000
-
CPS STEP (2005-2012)
CPS Renewables (2002-2012)
Water
saved
2,484
23,858
20
Water Conservation
• Re-circulate cooling water in reservoir for reuse
• Recycle all waste streams-99%
• Evaluate low water usage processes when considering
capital investments (water efficient gas turbines instead of
gas steam turbines)
• Investigate new water treatment technologies
• Increase power plant efficiency
• Encourage energy conservation and provide rebates to
reduce growth in demand for generation
21
Drought Management
• Drought Management Plan updated
• Peak load demand reduction
• Strategic scheduling of river pumping operations and enhanced
monitoring for optimal lake level management
• Increased communication and collaboration with San Antonio
Water System, San Antonio River Authority and South Texas Water
Master
• Participate in industry working groups to develop best practices
for drought preparedness (e.g., ERCOT)
• Examine dispatching units based on water use or availability;
moving water between power plant cooling reservoirs
• Monitor market conditions-may purchase wholesale power
22
Challenges
A. TAP Lawsuit
• Recent court ruling against TCEQ
– Over-allocation of water rights in the basin caused death
of 23 whooping cranes
• TCEQ can’t issue new water rights
• 5th Court of Appeals granted stay
– Additional arguments in August 2013
• Potential impact on existing SW rights
23
Challenges (cont.)
B. Endangered Species
• Proposed federal listing of 5 mussels species in
Central TX River basin by USF&W
• UT Bureau of Economic Geology/Texas
Comptroller’s Office Study (draft) on economic
impact of listing
– Would result in $107M losses for CPS Energy for nongeneration at Braunig and Calaveras due to potential
higher flow requirement
• Mussel studies underway by SARA and USGS
• Potential reallocation of existing surface water
rights
24
Challenges (cont.)
C. Regulatory
• 316 b –Cooling Water Intake Structure final rule in
Jan 2014
• New Effluent Guidelines for Steam Electric
• Thermal Discharge Limits
• Potentially limit operations at Braunig and
Calaveras
• Need to assess costs and benefits
25
Take Away
•
•
•
•
•
•
Early pioneer in Edwards Aquifer water conservation
efforts and reuse water, partnered with SAWS and its
predecessors
Diversification, shift to renewables, and emphasis on
energy efficiency keep water demand consistently low
and decrease water requirements
Continuous review and improvement of plant operation
efficiencies and water management strategies
Continued close cooperation with SAWS and other
agencies allow for better management of water supplies
Enough water supplies for future expansion and during
period of prolonged drought
Proposed regulatory and environmental requirements
create challenges and uncertainties
26
Questions
27