Contributors

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

How much will JPS save based on ESET Energy Path

Without boring you with details here is the summary of my calculations on what savings I believe JPS is likely to see once the plants mentioned in the previous post are up and running. Figures below are in US$
Annual savings (ADO – LNG Bogue 120 mW) $           134,537,321
Annual fuel savings (HFO- LNG-190 mW) $        89,918,562.57
Saving per annum replacing 85mW HFO with Coal ( Jamalco) $        65,208,920.64
Total fuel savings- fuel switching $           301,194,797
Working out how much the end user will see ie me and you is a lot more tricky and will require a lot more work than I was able to do just now.  I will however by working on something and should have a rough estimate once I have more information in the coming weeks.

Energy Path Set – ESET . A brief analysis of what has been presented.


I will attempt to provide readers with a brief analysis of what was presented at the first ESET press conference yesterday.
The Gleaner today reported that  ESET has decided to replace the 381 mW project with a set of other power generation initiatives that would cut energy cost by 30%. Now I was not at the press briefing, but I have seen nothing so far in what was presented in the papers to show that this pronouncement is even realistic.
Key points that have been noted via the Gleaner
  1. JPS is to convert its Bogue Plant plant to burn gas ( I will come to this in a second)
  2. JPS is to replace 292 MW of oil fired plant with a 190 mW Gas turbine burning LNG.
  3. Jamalco is to operate a Co-Generation coal fired facility
  4. US Rusal which operates Alpart is to build a Ethane fired power plant .
  5. ESET is to  conduct further due diligence on the various proposals and analysis on fuel supply financing etc.
Point 1.
As far I  know this facility is a dual fuel plant (flexi fuel), which is capable of burning both HFO and LNG and all is required is a source of fuel ie LNG. Savings here but no increase in base load capacity on this 120 mW Power plant. JPS has been in talks for sometime now to get a stable and cost effective supply of LNG for this facility and actually signed an agreement with Canadian firm Fueling Tech Incorporated (FTI) International , which was leading a consortium to assist JPS in this regard.
Point 2
JPS is to replace 292 mW of generation with 190 mW, which leaves a shortfall of 102 mW and has to be replaced somehow . I read nothing so far to suggest how this shortfall will be replaced. It early days yet, so I do expect to hear more  from ESET on this one.
Point 3
Jamalco had a proposal on table to build a 140 mW Cogeneration , to provide its thermal requirements and would off load 85 mW of power in the JPS grid. I am not sure if this is the proposal that is being rehashed almost 8 years later, so I will await further word from ESET on this particular matter.This plant would have been a coal fired plant and as ESET have said the coal would come from Columbia, which was the worlds 4th largest suppler of coal in 2012. The good thing about the coal from Columbia is its low sulphur content, which means lower SOx emissions. I am going to assume this 85 mWto be sold into the grid would help reduce the 102 mW deficit mentioned above.
Typically Co-generation facilities are not used to provide base power given the fact that the facility in question would use what it needs and feeds the remainder into the grid, which makes this more of a Distributed Generation Facility of DG and therefore would  provide a variable supply.
Now a coal fired plant takes approximately 4 yrs to build, so if construction begins late next year, the plant would not come online until  late 2019 !
I will support a coal fired plant, but I would have preferred if JPS was the one developing this facility for true base load requirement.
Point 4
US Rusal Ethane fired power plant. I think this is a none starter for two main reasons
  1. US Rusal is not going to be making any further investments in Jamaica.
  2. Ethene as a source of fuel for a power plant is a major challenge, as the process to transport from where its manufactured to point of use is not mature process given the extreme conditions that it requires. It is typically used where its processed and frankly  I do not see UC Rusal being involved in this process at all, so I would say this particular proposal is akin to flying a kite.
So where does this leave us.
I said the information presented by ESET has offered absolutely nothing new at this stage given what I have mentioned above. JPS lost the chance to replace its aging generators under the original 400 MW project because it was unable to source the LNG require to run its facility.
By splitting up the project into little bits and pieces therefore reduces our bargaining capabilities for cheaper LNG. if each entity is required to find, negotiate and sources it own fuel, which reduces the possibility of that magical 30% we are looking for.
The only way this would therefore work is if one entity ( eg the GOJ) negotiates and sources the fuel, which it in turns sells to the power producers. Recall we attempted this before with Exmar and we all recall how that ended up.
I will not cold pour water yet on the ESET preliminary report and will await further information, but from what has been reported thus far, it fails to inspire any confidence that we can have cheaper sources of electricity and 30% reduction by 2019 !
That folks is my quick analysis of the ESET first report.

ESET- The new energy path, further review.


I got more information last evening in relation to the new course that ESET plans to chart as it relates to the new policy direction for additional/replacement generation on the grid.  The mix is now as follows.
  1. JPS replaces  292 mW HFO plants, with 190mW of LNG fired power plant ( Balance – 102 mW)
  2. Jamalco will build a 140 mW plant of which 85mW will be sold to the grid  ( Bal now 17 mW)
  3. Alpart to build a 50mW Cogeneration plant. ( Now sure how much will be sold to the grid)
  4. 120 MW Bogue to be converted to run LNG ( No increase in generation capacity).
Total new generating capacity  to be deployed  is 380 mW.
Total Installed generating capacity to be available to the grid would be around  290 – 300 mW.
Now let’s explore the various cost involved in getting these plants up and running and what cost would they be able to generate and sell power back into the grid.
I will then give an estimate in terms of the possible reduction in overall cost to the customer when all this is completed and operational.
JPS LNG FIRED 190 mW CCGT 
Installated Capacity (MW)190
Rated output (MW) based on CF 90%171
Uptime85%
# Days365
Projected Run hrs7446
Total Generated power (MWh)                   1,273,266
Plant Rated Eff  (CCGT)45%
Average Heating (MJ/CF)1.11E+00
Total volume of LNG Req CF
MJ of fuel required         10,186,046,512
Cost LNG US$/ ( MJ USA)$0.01104161
Total Fuel Cost /Annum $           112,470,364
Fuel cost as % total cost85%
O&M15%
Est total annual cost $           132,318,076
Fuel Cost / KWH $                      0.0883
Total Cost per KWH $                      0.1039
Interest payment$14,772,612
Total Annual Cost Incl Int Pay$147,090,688
Cost per Kwh$0.1155
Plant Est Cost$194,370,000
Loan amount$165,214,500
Ave weighted cost of borrowing8.07%
Length of loan yrs30
Annual Maintenance Cost 1.5% Cap cost$2,915,550
ROI > 6.6%( After tax)11.62%
Tax Rate33.30%
EBT based on 33% Int rate
Total Generation Cost to meet ROI $           180,952,448
Final Price to Grid $                      0.1421
As one can see this is above the bench mark of US$0.1288 that was set by the Energy Minister earlier this year.
Now how much does JPS save by shuttering its old Gas Fired Plant. Lets explore the HFO fired plant to see what kind of a cost we believe JPS would have been generating at.
JPS 292MW HFO Fired Power Plants
Installated Capacity (MW)292
Rated output (MW) based on CF 90%262.8
Uptime85%
# Days365
Projected Run hrs7446
Total Generated power (MWh)                    1,956,809
Plant Rated Eff30%
Average Heating (MMBTU/GAL)1.49E+02
Total volume of HFO Req Gal                137,545,710
Tonnes of fuel required                  484,807.37
Cost HFO US$/ (TONNE USA) $                  575.7500
Total Fuel Cost /Annum $            279,127,840
Fuel cost as % total cost85%
O&M15%
Est total annual cost $            328,385,695
Fuel Cost / KWH $                       0.1426
Total Cost per KWH $                       0.1678
Interest payment
Total Annual Cost $            328,385,695
Cost per Kwh$0.1678
Plant Est Cost$227,292,800
Loan amount
Ave weighted cost of borrowing8.00%
Length of loan yrs30
Annual Maintenance Cost 1.5% Cap cost$3,409,392.0
ROI > 6.6%( After tax)11.62%
Tax Rate33.30%
EBT based on 33% Int rate
Total Generation Cost to meet ROI $      367,983,030.98
Price to the grid $                       0.1881
This is approx 19% reduction in price to the grid. Note this is NOT necessarily the price reduction the customers will see given, the T&D losses, Theft losses etc.
So by JPS would from the above save approximately US$184.66M in fuel cost alone by shutting down its 292 HFO fired plants and build and operate a 190 mw LNG fired plant. There is more savings to come, when we look at the cost now operate the Bogue 120 MW plant .
I will present those numbers later in the week.
Its a lot to digest for now.
Bless

Friday, October 21, 2011

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

How to eliminate your demand charges

This post is specifically for any business which has decided to stop using JPS either temporarily or permanently.
When a customer applies for power for their business, they have in effect entered into a contract between the JPS and the company in question.
Demand charges I have explained already and will just focus on how to stop them from coming should you decide to stop using their services.

You need to write to JPS indicating that you are terminating or suspending your contract with the them which would stop your demand charges from appearing for up to six months after you have turned off your breaker. Failure to do so will see you wracking up demand charges for up to six months after you have stopped using the service.

Keep tuned into this blog for information.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Why our electricity bills from JPS are so high?

The issue of high electricity rates has been a sore point for all JPS customers for sometime now, but the debate has really heated up with the recent spike in electricity rates. The issue has now sparked wide spread debate with one senator labeling the JPS as an extortionist organization.

Others have called JPS, vampires sucking the blood out of its consumers while making billions of dollars in profits for its owners in the process. Many persons have indicated that even when they attempt to conserve energy, their bills keeps rising and that energy conservation does not seem to work.

The politicians have now joined in, with Phillip Paulwell calling for the breakup of JPS which he suggest could cut our electricity bill by 50%. The current minister however does not agree and so will do nothing at this point in that regard.

Recently we see where the Jamaica Productivity Center in conjunction with Mona School of Business have done some research and has suggested that Jamaica could save upwards of J$15B if JPS was able to reduce it technical and non technical losses from 23.9% to 16% and at the same time have a better conversation rate for fuel. They have suggested that if JPS moves it heat to electricity conversation rate from 10,400 to 8,100 KJ/kwh (kilojoules per kilowatt hour) just over $7.8b in savings could be netted.

Another school of thought is, if we moved from crude oil to LNG we could see in the region of US$500m shaved off our oil bill, but how much reduction would be likely see in our electricity rates? At current rates of US$100 per barrel and our imports being around 1.4mb/y (million barrels per year) our bill is in the region of US$1.4B

Given the fact that our oil bill is order of US$1.4B per annum and that 23% of the oil that is imported goes into the generation of electricity, at current conversation rates we could expect to see reduction of around 25- 30% or between $0.08 - $0.12 per kwh, using a base residential rate of US$0.35 per Kwh.

Next we come to energy diversification, where electricity will be generated from a number of different sources i.e. a combination of fossil fuels and renewables. All of this stuff while making a lot of sense cost a lot on money to be implemented.

So what does all of this have to do with why the price of electricity is so high in Jamaica? This is what I will seek to explore further in the rest of the article.

The Jamaican experience

Jamaica stands today as one of the few countries in the world where the electrical demand and productivity shares an inversely proportional relationship. By this I mean in most industrial countries in the world peak demand takes place during the productive hours of the day i.e. between say 6am and 6pm.
Jamaica has defied that logic and its peak period are when persons are the least productive. In Jamaica the peak period is when persons are at home and falls between the hours of 6pm to 10pm.
Partial peak is between 6am and 6pm and off peaks hours are between 10pm and 6am.

Therein lies one of our biggest problem, which will NOT be solved be cheaper sources of fuel or more efficient plants. Our problems lies in our way of life which if not changed will continue to result in high rates. We will get only temporary relief from high prices with lower oil prices or cheaper sources for electrical generation but ultimately it will rise again by virtue of our bad energy profile.

To understand how our electrical bill is arrived at we need to understand what goes into the determination of the bill.
It must also be noted that JPS have varying tariff structures, which depends on your demand /energy consumption at the rates are different under each of these tariffs (See JPS tariff structure on the JPS website).


What makes up the JPS bill?

1. Energy Charge ($ per kwh)
2. KVA/KW demand (mainly for industrial and large commercial customers)
3. Fuel & IPP charges (to compensate for changes in oil prices).
4. Foreign exchange adjustments (to compensate for changes in exchange rates)
5. Customer Charge (Administrative charges, for billing, meter reading etc)
6. Discount if you own and maintain your own distribution transformer
7. Ratchet charge (Industrial customer/large commercial)
8. Power factor charge (Industrial customer/large commercial)
9. Tiered rate structure increasing or decreasing cost per $kwh above say 100Kwh
10. In addition you must know the rate category that you fall in.







The residential customer only gets billed for 1, 3, 4 & 5 above and therein lies a part of our problem. I am not for one minute suggesting that we pay more, but I want to make a point of why it’s the residential customers that are partly to be blamed for our very high energy bill.


Understanding Demand

Demand (noted is KW or sometimes KVA )refers to the need to have this available power supply at the very instant that the customer needs it, i.e. it must be readily available for use. Consider this example: When I turn on the pipe I expect to find water, as I need (demand) water at that point in time. The flow of water over time can is what the residential customer pays for i.e. what they actually use.

Demand Charges

But someone has to pay for the fact that JPS must have that available power on standby so when it’s needed it is fact available, so who pays for this. Since demand is not shown up on the bill of the residential customer as a separate line item, who pays for this charge or where is it hidden.

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. The little secret is that you are in fact billed for this demand that JPS must have available for that peak between 6pm and 10pm, but you do not see it as a line item.
The demand charge for residential customer is averaged and rolled up into your energy charge, this is part of the reason why the residential customer pay more per kwh that the industrial and large commercial customers.

Sample rates (Refer to JPS tariff structure rates 2010 http://www.myjpsco.com/_pdfs/JPS_TariffSchedule2010.pdf)



Cost /kwh Demand Charges

Residential (Rate 10) $6.41 first 100Kwh, $14.66 /kwh above 100  ($0.00 demand charges)

General (Rate 20) $12.53/kwh

Rate 40 Low Voltage $3.57/kwh $1295.28/kva

Rate 50 Medium Voltage $3.39/kwh $1165.75


The skewed demand for electricity at the lowest voltage possible is partially the reason for our high energy cost since JPS has to run the equipment with the least level of efficiencies to meet this peak load demand and thus charges more for this service.

For the above to change it would require JPS to increase base load using more efficient generators, which comes at a very capital cost. You simply cannot have high cost equipment sitting around waiting to satisfy peak load it has to be paid for and that will fall on the backs of the residential customer.

The best and most cost effective way towards lower bills is therefore energy conservation. If we can move peak demand to the productive hours of the day the more efficient generators can run for longer period and JPS will distribute at higher voltages which means lower system losses and ultimately lower bills.

Our high bills are therefore partly the inefficiencies on the path of JPS but is also as a result of the way we use or should I say misuse energy. If we change we way we operate I believe we can see at least a 10-15% reduction in our energy bills.

Part 2 to follow.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Energy Audit made simple

What is an energy audit and why is it important, especially at this time when the cost of energy is at an all time high in Jamaica.
In its most basic form an energy audit allows you to see where you are using energy either at home or your place of business.


  • Wouldn't  be nice if you could predict the cost of energy each month?
  • What if you could tell what actions on your part leads to energy usage or wastage?
  • How do you know if you are actually using what you are being billed for?


Have you ever received a water bill and you know that you could not have used that volume of water. I am sure this has happen to many persons and what they typically do is the most basic of audits, yes you may not even realize that is what you did.
So you shut off all pipes and go look at the meter and lo and behold the meter dial is spinning like crazy and you are sure everything has been locked off.

So what do you do now, well go look around to try and find where this water is leaking, as it must be leaking somewhere for your meter to be registering usage. You look but cannot find any leaks, so what do you do next.
Do you leave it and continue to line the pockets of NWC or do you take action. Most persons will take action and will seek the services of a plumber to try and figure out where this leak is and fix it, so they can stop paying for what they really have not consumed. I use the word consumed as while the meter did register the usage you actually did not consume all that water, quite a bit was wasted due to the leak.

Now that you understand the concept, why are we treating electricity any different. With water you can physically see the leak(or well the plumber can) but with electricity there is nothing to see. The fact that you cannot see the electricity "leaking" does not mean its not occurring, so what do you do.
Whatever your meter registers ( we are assuming the meter is accurate) is a combination of what is used and what is wasted(leaking), and the only way to know what's really going on is to measure it.

An energy audit will tell you where you are vulnerable and will provide you with data, which you can now use to plug those leaks.
The audit will NOT fix the problem, it will point you in the direction to fix the problem, what you do with the data however is what determines the level of savings which you will see.