59485 The Power of Experience Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, Submitted to: and Fuels Supply Strategy World Bank Final Report Submitted By: March 2010 Contents Section Page Section 1 Executive Summary 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Approach ...................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3 Load Forecast ............................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Fuel Supply .................................................................................................................. 1-9 1.5 Project and Technology Analysis .............................................................................. 1-10 1.6 Regional Strategies .................................................................................................... 1-25 1.7 Country Summaries ................................................................................................... 1-26 1.8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 1-42 Section 2 Introduction 2-1 2.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Study Team .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Section 3 Approach 3-1 3.1 Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Brief Description of Study Steps ................................................................................. 3-1 Section 4 Data 4-1 4.1 Data Collection Process ............................................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 Existing and Planned Generation, Summary of Transmission 5-1 5.1 Existing and Planned Generation Plants ...................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Existing Transmission Systems ................................................................................. 5-14 5.3 Description and Analysis of Power Generation Market ............................................ 5-14 Section 6 Load Forecast 6-1 6.1 Load Forecasting Approach ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Current Demand and Electricity Forecast by Country ................................................. 6-1 6.3 Regional Load Forecast ............................................................................................. 6-15 Section 7 Fuel Supply 7-1 7.1 Existing Fuel Supply .................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Potential Fuel Supply Options ..................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Fuel Storage Options.................................................................................................. 7-23 7.4 Fuel Prices and Projections ........................................................................................ 7-27 Section 8 Generation Technologies and Expansion Options 8-1 8.1 Regional Overview ...................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Fossil Fuel Technologies ­ Costs and Performance .................................................... 8-4 8.3 Renewable Energy Technologies ­ Power Plant Costs and Performance ................. 8-11 8.4 Renewable Technologies ­ Resource Availability .................................................... 8-32 8.5 Upgrade and Retrofit of Existing Units ..................................................................... 8-38 8.6 Renewable Energy Projects ....................................................................................... 8-39 Section 9 Submarine Cables and Interconnection Options 9-1 9.1 Overview of Submarine Cables ................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Existing/Proposed Sub-regional Interconnection Options ......................................... 9-12 9.3 Northern Ring Interconnection .................................................................................. 9-36 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report i Contents Section 10 Study Analytical Approach 10-1 10.1 Overview of Analytical Procedures ........................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Screening Analysis Approach .................................................................................... 10-1 10.3 Approach for Developing Scenarios .......................................................................... 10-5 10.4 Power System Expansion Planning and Analysis Approach ..................................... 10-6 Section 11 Screening Analysis Results 11-1 11.1 Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Screening Curves for Individual Islands .................................................................... 11-5 11.3 The Impact of CO2 "Costs" ..................................................................................... 11-20 Section 12 Scenarios 12-1 12.1 Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................... 12-1 12.2 Fuel Scenario ............................................................................................................. 12-2 12.3 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario......................................................................... 12-2 12.4 Integrated Scenario .................................................................................................... 12-3 Section 13 Scenario Analysis Results 13-1 13.1 Base Case Scenario Summary ................................................................................... 13-2 13.2 Fuel Scenario ............................................................................................................. 13-6 13.3 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario......................................................................... 13-9 13.4 Integrated Scenario .................................................................................................. 13-13 Section 14 Study Results Evaluation 14-1 14.1 Comparison of Scenario Results ................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Recommended Development Scenario ...................................................................... 14-4 Section 15 Conclusions and Recommendations 15-1 15.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 15-6 Attachment A provides detailed scenario analysis results Attachment B provides a discussion of submarine power cable reliability Attachment C provides a discussion of submarine power cable repair procedures Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report ii Contents Table Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... viii Table 1-1 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW) ..................................................................... 1-7 Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh) .................................................................................. 1-8 Table 1-3 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ....................................................... 1-9 Table 1-4 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (million US$) ................................................................................................................................... 1-26 Table 5-1 Fuels, Fuel Types, and Where the Fuel Prices Apply ................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2 Existing Generating Units ........................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-3 Planned Generating Units ............................................................................................ 5-9 Table 5-4 Transmission System Frequency and Highest Voltages ........................................... 5-14 Table 6-1 Summary Load Forecast for Antigua and Barbuda ..................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2 Summary Load Forecast for Barbados ........................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3 Summary Load Forecast for Dominica ....................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-4 Summary Load Forecast for Dominican Republic ...................................................... 6-5 Table 6-5 Summary Load Forecast for Grenada.......................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-6 Summary Load Forecast for Haiti ............................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-7 Summary Load Forecast for Jamaica .......................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-8 Summary Load Forecast for St. Kitts .......................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-9 Summary Load Forecast for Nevis ............................................................................ 6-10 Table 6-10 Summary Load Forecast for St. Lucia ..................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-11 Summary Load Forecast for St. Vincent and Grenadines ....................................... 6-12 Table 6-12 Summary Load Forecast for Martinique ................................................................. 6-13 Table 6-13 Summary Load Forecast for Guadeloupe ................................................................ 6-14 Table 6-14 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW) ................................................................. 6-16 Table 6-15 Net Generation Forecast (GWh) .............................................................................. 6-17 Table 7-1 Fuels Used by Country ................................................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-2 Pipeline Transportation Costs ­ All Islands Connected .............................................. 7-9 Table 7-3 Pipeline Transportation Costs ­ St. Lucia Not Connected ........................................ 7-10 Table 7-4 Pipeline Transportation Costs ­ St. Lucia and Guadeloupe Not Connected ............. 7-10 Table 7-5 Pipeline Transportation Costs ­ Barbados is Only Island Connected ....................... 7-11 Table 7-6 Mid-scale LNG Comparison ..................................................................................... 7-17 Table 7-7 Regional Petroleum Consumption ............................................................................ 7-25 Table 7-8 Summary of Economic Analysis ............................................................................... 7-26 Table 7-9 Transportation Cost Parameters ................................................................................ 7-28 Table 7-10 EIA US Fuel Prices, $/GJ ........................................................................................ 7-30 Table 7-11 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ................................................... 7-30 Table 7-12 Yearly Prices for Fuels for Caribbean Power Plants ............................................... 7-31 Table 8-1 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Conventional Coal Plants .................... 8-5 Table 8-2 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for CFB Plants .......................................... 8-6 Table 8-3 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines .... 8-7 Table 8-4 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Combined Cycle Plants ...................... 8-9 Table 8-5 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Diesel Engines .................................. 8-10 Table 8-6 Wind Class and Corresponding Wind Speed and Wind Power ................................ 8-13 Table 8-7 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Wind Turbines .................................. 8-15 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report iii Contents Table 8-8 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Geothermal Plants ............................ 8-19 Table 8-9 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Small Hydro Plants ........................... 8-20 Table 8-10 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Solar Trough Plants ........................ 8-27 Table 8-11 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for PV Systems..................................... 8-30 Table 8-12 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Biomass and LFG Plants ................ 8-31 Table 8-13 Renewable Resource Estimate for the Caribbean Region ....................................... 8-36 Table 9-1 List of Some of the World's Major AC Submarine Cable Links ................................ 9-4 Table 9-2 List of Some of the World's Major DC Submarine Cable Links ................................ 9-6 Table 9-3 Submarine Cable Project Costs ................................................................................... 9-9 Table 9-4 Proposed Submarine Cable Interconnections ............................................................ 9-13 Table 9-5 Cost Comparison ­ Nexans Estimates and Historical Formula................................. 9-15 Table 9-6 Basic Data and Cost Estimates for Submarine Cable Interconnections .................... 9-37 Table 11-1 Added Cost of Fuels Based on CO2 Cost of US$50/tonne ................................... 11-21 Table 11-2 Impact of CO2 Costs on Fuel Costs ...................................................................... 11-21 Table 13-1 Base Case Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................... 13-5 Table 13-2 Base Case Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................... 13-5 Table 13-3 Fuel Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................... 13-8 Table 13-4 Fuel Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)............................... 13-8 Table 13-5 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......................................................................................................................................... 13-11 Table 13-6 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......................................................................................................................................... 13-11 Table 13-7 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................................................................................................................................. 13-12 Table 13-8 Integrated Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... 13-15 Table 13-9 Integrated Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................... 13-15 Table 13-10 Integrated Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......... 13-16 Table 14-1 Scenario NPV Cost Comparison (Million US$) ..................................................... 14-1 Table 14-2 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$) ................................................................................................................................... 14-2 Table 14-3 Investment Requirement, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario...................................... 14-5 Table 14-4 Production Cost Summary, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario................................... 14-6 Table 15-1 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ................................................... 15-1 Table 15-1 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$) ................................................................................................................................... 15-6 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report iv Contents Figure Page Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map............................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study ................................................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study ..................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic ........................................................................ 1-11 Figure 1-5 Other Options for Dominican Republic ................................................................... 1-12 Figure 1-6 Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) Proposed Route ....................................... 1-14 Figure 1-7 Dominica Interconnections ...................................................................................... 1-16 Figure 1-8 Nevis ­ Puerto Rico and Nevis ­ US Virgin Islands Interconnections .................... 1-17 Figure 1-9 Saba ­ St. Maarten Interconnection ......................................................................... 1-18 Figure 1-10 Haiti ­ Dominican Republic Interconnection ........................................................ 1-19 Figure 1-11 United States (Florida) ­ Cuba Interconnection..................................................... 1-20 Figure 1-12 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections .................................................................. 1-21 Figure 1-13 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative .......................................................... 1-22 Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options ...................................................... 1-24 Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options...................................................... 1-24 Figure 7-1 Coal Transportation Costs .......................................................................................... 7-5 Figure 7-2 LNG Transportation Costs ....................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-3 CNG Transportation Costs ....................................................................................... 7-22 Figure 8-1 Existing Generation Technologies ............................................................................. 8-1 Figure 8-2 Capital Cost Estimate for Power Projects in US ........................................................ 8-3 Figure 8-3 Wind Turbine Components ..................................................................................... 8-14 Figure 8-4 Output Profile ­ Wind Speed vs. kW output for Gamesa G58 Turbine .................. 8-15 Figure 8-5 Flash Steam Geothermal Power Plant Schematic .................................................... 8-18 Figure 8-6 Parabolic Trough Collector Plant ............................................................................. 8-21 Figure 8-7 10 MW Solar 2 Project near Barstow, CA ............................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-8 Ausra and Sky Fuel CLFR Lay Outs ....................................................................... 8-24 Figure 8-9 Parabolic Dish with Stirling Engine ......................................................................... 8-25 Figure 8-10 Two Tank Thermal Storage System....................................................................... 8-26 Figure 8-11 Typical PV Solar Module....................................................................................... 8-29 Figure 8-12 Typical PV System Configuration ......................................................................... 8-29 Figure 8-13 Least Cost Line for Distillate Fuel ......................................................................... 8-42 Figure 8-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options ...................................................... 8-43 Figure 8-15 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis with No Geothermal .................. 8-47 Figure 8-16 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis vs. Geothermal ........................... 8-48 Figure 9-1 3-Core XLPE Submarine Cable ................................................................................. 9-2 Figure 9-2 Photograph of a Sample of the 525 kV Vancouver Island Cable .............................. 9-3 Figure 9-3 Transmission Cable System Selection Criteria for Various Cable Types and Capacities (Courtesy of Prysmian Cables and Systems). .................................................... 9-8 Figure 9-4 HV DC MI-IRC Cable ............................................................................................. 9-10 Figure 9-5 Correlation Between Cable Length and Cost (2009 $) ........................................... 9-11 Figure 9-6 Correlation between Cost per MW/MVA and Length ............................................. 9-14 Figure 9-7 Fossil Least Cost Line for St. Kitts vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection ............................................................................................................................................ 9-16 Figure 9-8 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique with No Geothermal.................................... 9-18 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report v Contents Figure 9-9 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW Each .................................................................... 9-19 Figure 9-10 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW Each ...................................................................... 9-20 Figure 9-11 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe with No Geothermal ................................ 9-21 Figure 9-12 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW ............................................................................................... 9-22 Figure 9-13 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW ................................................................................................. 9-23 Figure 9-14 HFO Steam Plant for Puerto Rico vs. Fossil Fuel Options for Florida and Interconnection at 400MW ................................................................................................ 9-24 Figure 9-15 Fossil Fuel Option for USVI vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection . 9-25 Figure 9-16 Fossil Fuel Option for Sint Maarten vs. Geothermal plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100MW ................................................................................................ 9-27 Figure 9-17 Fossil Fuel Option for Cuba vs. Fossil Plants / Submarine Interconnection at 400 MW .................................................................................................................................... 9-28 Figure 9-18 Fossil Fuel Option for Haiti vs. Fossil Plants / Land Interconnection at 130 MW 9-30 Figure 9-19 Dominica Interconnections .................................................................................... 9-31 Figure 9-20 Nevis ­ Puerto Rico and Nevis ­ US Virgin Islands Interconnections .................. 9-32 Figure 9-21 Saba ­ St. Maarten Interconnection ....................................................................... 9-33 Figure 9-22 Haiti ­ Dominican Republic Interconnection ........................................................ 9-34 Figure 9-23 United States (Florida) ­ Cuba Interconnection..................................................... 9-35 Figure 9-24 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections .................................................................. 9-39 Figure 9-25 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative .......................................................... 9-40 Figure 10-1 Cost Representation for Screening Analysis Method ............................................ 10-2 Figure 10-2 Illustrative Development of Least Cost Line (LCL) .............................................. 10-3 Figure 10-3 Least Cost Line Plus Renewable Energy Resources .............................................. 10-4 Figure 11-1 Screening Curves for Distillate-fueled Technologies ............................................ 11-2 Figure 11-2 Distillate vs. HFO Cost Comparison...................................................................... 11-3 Figure 11-3 Screening Curves for Coal-fueled Technologies ................................................... 11-5 Figure 11-4 Fossil LCL and Wind for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines ......................................................................................................................... 11-6 Figure 11-5 Fossil LCL for Barbados ........................................................................................ 11-7 Figure 11-6 Other Options for Barbados ................................................................................... 11-8 Figure 11-7 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic ...................................................................... 11-9 Figure 11-8 Other Options for Dominican Republic ............................................................... 11-10 Figure 11-9 Fossil LCL for Guadeloupe .................................................................................. 11-11 Figure 11-10 Other Options for Guadeloupe ........................................................................... 11-12 Figure 11-11 Fossil LCL for Haiti ........................................................................................... 11-13 Figure 11-12 Other Options for Haiti ...................................................................................... 11-14 Figure 11-13 Fossil LCL for Jamaica ...................................................................................... 11-15 Figure 11-14 Other Options for Jamaica ................................................................................. 11-16 Figure 11-15 Fossil LCL for Martinique ................................................................................. 11-17 Figure 11-16 Other Options for Martinique............................................................................. 11-18 Figure 11-17 Fossil LCL for St. Lucia..................................................................................... 11-19 Figure 11-18 Other Options for St. Lucia ................................................................................ 11-20 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report vi Contents Figure 11-19 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands Using Only Distillate ........................................... 11-22 Figure 11-20 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Coal on Fossil LCL...................................... 11-23 Figure 11-21 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Gas on Fossil LCL ....................................... 11-25 Figure 11-22 CO2 Cost Impact on Country with Lowest Non-gas Fuel Prices ...................... 11-26 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report vii Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ABS American Bureau of Shipping AC Alternating current ADO Automotive diesel oil APC Antigua Power Company APUA Antigua Public Utility Authority ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers Aus Australia BL&P Barbados Light and Power BPD Barrels per day CC, CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine CFB Circulating fluidized bed CHP Combined heat and power CLFR Compact linear Fresnel reflector CNG Compressed natural gas CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide Cogen Cogeneration CSP Concentrating solar power CT Combustion turbine DC Direct current DNV Det Norske Veritas DOMLEC Dominica Electricity Services Limited DR Dominican Republic ECGP Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline ECGPC Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline Company EDF, EdF Electricite de France EDH, EdH Electricite d'Haiti EGS Engineered geothermal systems EHV Extra high voltage EIA Energy Information Administration EIR Environmental impact report EPR Ethylene-propylene- rubber EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program ESP Electrostatic precipitator FGD Flue gas desulfurization Fin Finland FSRU Floating Storage and Re-gasification Units Ger Germany GJ Gigajoule GP Gas pipeline GRENLEC Grenada Energy Services Ltd. GT Gas turbine Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report viii Contents GWH, GWh Gigawatt-hour HDR Hot dry rocks HFO Heavy fuel oil HHV Higher heating value HPFF High pressure fluid filled HRSG Heat recovery steam generator HTF Heat transport fluid HV High voltage Hz Hertz (cycles per second) IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IC Internal combustion ICGPL Intra Caribbean Gas Pipeline Limited IDA International Development Association ISO International Organization for Standardization JPS Jamaica Public Service kcmil Thousand circular mils kg Kilogram kJ Kilojoule km Kilometer kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LCL Least cost line LFG Landfill gas LHV Lower heating value LNG Liquefied natural gas LSD Low speed diesel LUCELEC St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd. m Meter MEM Ministry of Energy and Mining (Jamaica) MI Mass-impregnated MI-IRC MI cable with and integral return conductor MMBTU Million British Thermal Units MMscf Million standard cubic feet MMscfd Million standard cubic feet per day mm2 Square millimeters MOU Memorandum of understanding MPa Megapascal (1 MPa = pressure about equal to 145 pounds/square inch) mph Miles per hour MSD Medium speed diesel Mt Metric ton Muni Municipal MVA Megavolt-ampere MW Megawatt MWe Megawatts electric Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report ix Contents MWt Megawatts thermal NGC National Gas Company of Trinidad & Tobago NL Netherlands Nor Norway NOx Nitrogen oxide (NO or NO2) NPV Net present value NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory O&M Operations and maintenance PC Pulverized coal PV Photovoltaic ROC Republic of China ROV Remotely operated vehicle SCFF Self-contained, fluid-filled SCGT Simple cycle gas turbine SCR Selective catalytic reduction SEGS Solar electric generating system SNCR Selective non-catalytic reduction SOx Sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide SSD Slow speed diesel Swe Sweden TES Thermal energy storage TOR Terms of Reference UK United Kingdom USA United States of America US DOE United States Department of Energy USVI United States Virgin Islands V Volt VINLEC St. Vincent Electricity Service Ltd. VSC Voltage source control W Watt WIPC West Indies Power Company XLP Special cross-linked polymeric insulated DC cables XLPE Cross-linked polyethylene 3/c XLPE 3-core XLPE cable (i.e., each of the three phases is in one of three separate conductors within a common armor) yr Year Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report x Section 1 Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of this Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy (the Study) is to analyze the availability of technically and financially sound regional and sub-regional energy solutions for power generation rather than specific energy solutions for each Caribbean country. The energy solutions involve new fuels or fuel transport modes (pipeline gas, CNG, LNG, coal), new energy resources for power generation (primarily wind and geothermal), and new electrical interconnections among islands, none of which are presently interconnected. The immediate goal of studying these areas was to reduce the Caribbean islands' dependence on high price imported distillate and HFO. A related goal was that solutions would emerge that reduced costs, reduced environmental impacts, and increased the integration of the Caribbean islands. The entire Caribbean region is presented on Figure 1-1. We note at the outset that we have identified no truly regional energy solutions, not even one covering the nine countries of primary emphasis mentioned in the second paragraph below. We have identified and analyzed, to varying degrees of detail, 11 submarine cable electrical interconnections between two countries and one land-based interconnection. Some of these two- country sub-regional interconnections are part of larger schemes involving three or more countries. The only sub-regional fuel project the Study evaluated was the five-country Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP). Schemes involving LNG or CNG implicitly or explicitly rely on some common facilities when more than one country is a user, but in that sense they are not different from the current delivery modes for distillate and heavy fuel oil (HFO) and were analyzed on a country-by-country basis. It is interesting that the goal of reducing dependence on high price imported oil products and the goal of reducing environmental impacts and increasing the integration of the region turned out to be complementary. The most direct benefit of an interconnection comes when one country has a source of low cost power and its neighbor does not. The three lowest cost resources for operation at capacity factors above about 30% are renewables: geothermal, wind (including the cost of backup generation), and small hydro. This assumes that high quality sites can be identified and acquired. Geothermal is the source of generation and drives the benefits for many of the interconnections. Thus geothermal on a local and sub-regional basis, and wind on a local basis, provide a path toward a less oil-dependent, lower cost, lower environmental impact, more sustainable future. The primary emphasis of the Study is on the nine countries in the Caribbean eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA) and/or the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Those countries are presented, together with their relative electricity market share, on Figure 1-2. These nine include: Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-1 Six small countries in the Lesser Antilles: St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica, total combined population about 600,000 Three countries located on two of the four islands in the Greater Antilles: Haiti and the Dominican Republic, both on the island Hispaniola, and Jamaica, total population about 22,000,000 The Study also considered other relevant countries, presented on Figure 1-3, that might be part of a regional energy solution. In addition to the nine countries mentioned above, we visited or obtained significant data on Barbados1, Trinidad and Tobago, and Martinique; somewhat less on Guadeloupe; and cursory information on Puerto Rico, Sint Maarten, and Cuba. We also obtained cursory information on power generation in Florida. 1 Barbados was addressed in more details as par of the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline project analysis. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-2 Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-3 Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-4 Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-5 1.2 APPROACH Our approach included the following main steps: Collect the foundation data needed to conduct the work Prepare a peak and energy demand forecast for each country and the Study countries as a whole Forecast fuel costs for all fuels used, including pipeline gas, LNG, CNG, and coal Estimate fuel transportation costs for each fuel to each country and determine effective fuel price Determine the performance and cost parameters of all existing power generation units Determine the performance and cost parameters of power generation units suitable for meeting future demand Evaluate the cost and performance parameters for power generation from renewable energy, and estimate the availability of renewable energy resources Evaluate submarine cable technology Identify and evaluate submarine cable and land-based transmission interconnections Develop scenarios that include a range of approaches to regional power generation, and combine the most attractive components in an proposed scenario Report on and present the results (such as in this report) 1.3 LOAD FORECAST Tables 1-1 and 1-2 provides peak and energy demand forecasts for each country / island and for the region as a whole. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-6 Table 1-1 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW) Antigua St. Vincent Dominican Year and Barbados Dominica Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia and Martinique Guadeloupe Total Republic Barbuda Grenadines 2009 54 170 15 2,353 31 226 680 29 10 56 27 242 250 4,142 2010 57 176 15 2,447 33 237 707 30 10 58 28 247 256 4,302 2011 60 182 16 2,544 34 249 736 31 11 61 30 255 263 4,472 2012 63 188 16 2,640 36 261 767 32 11 63 32 263 269 4,643 2013 65 195 17 2,727 38 274 799 33 12 65 35 272 276 4,808 2014 67 201 17 2,803 40 288 832 35 13 68 37 281 284 4,965 2015 69 208 18 2,896 42 303 867 36 13 70 40 290 291 5,143 2016 71 216 18 2,992 45 318 904 37 14 73 42 297 298 5,324 2017 73 223 19 3,091 47 334 943 38 15 76 45 303 305 5,512 2018 75 231 19 3,194 50 350 983 40 16 79 48 310 313 5,708 2019 77 239 20 3,300 52 368 1,026 41 17 82 52 317 321 5,911 2020 80 247 20 3,409 55 386 1,071 43 18 85 55 324 329 6,121 2021 82 256 21 3,522 58 405 1,116 44 19 88 59 331 337 6,339 2022 85 265 21 3,638 61 426 1,165 46 20 91 63 339 346 6,565 2023 87 274 22 3,758 64 447 1,214 47 21 95 68 346 354 6,798 2024 90 284 22 3,882 68 469 1,267 49 23 98 72 354 363 7,041 2025 92 294 23 4,010 72 493 1,322 51 24 102 77 362 372 7,293 2026 95 304 24 4,143 75 517 1,379 52 25 106 83 370 381 7,555 2027 98 314 24 4,280 80 543 1,439 54 27 110 88 378 391 7,827 2028 101 325 25 4,421 84 570 1,502 56 29 114 94 387 400 8,109 Growth 3.3% 3.5% 2.7% 3.4% 5.4% 5.0% 4.3% 3.5% 5.9% 3.8% 6.9% 2.5% 2.5% 3.6% Rate Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Interim Report 1-7 Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh) Antigua St. Vincent Dominican Year and Barbados Dominica Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia and Martinique Guadeloupe Total Republic Barbuda Grenadines 2009 318 1,039 87 12,638 198 660 4,490 161 60 345 156 1,575 1,663 23,391 2010 315 1,073 89 13,142 209 726 4,674 166 67 356 167 1,620 1,720 24,322 2011 312 1,107 91 13,663 220 799 4,865 171 74 367 178 1,672 1,775 25,295 2012 410 1,143 94 14,179 232 878 5,066 175 82 378 191 1,727 1,832 26,387 2013 422 1,180 96 14,646 244 966 5,277 180 86 390 204 1,783 1,888 27,363 2014 434 1,218 99 15,054 257 1,063 5,494 186 90 402 218 1,840 1,947 28,303 2015 447 1,258 101 15,554 270 1,169 5,726 191 94 415 233 1,900 2,003 29,362 2016 461 1,298 104 16,070 285 1,286 5,974 196 99 428 249 1,938 2,060 30,448 2017 475 1,340 106 16,601 300 1,415 6,232 202 103 442 266 1,978 2,117 31,576 2018 489 1,384 109 17,154 316 1,556 6,497 208 107 455 284 2,018 2,174 32,751 2019 503 1,428 112 17,724 333 1,712 6,777 214 111 470 304 2,058 2,233 33,979 2020 519 1,475 114 18,309 350 1,883 7,073 220 115 484 325 2,100 2,284 35,252 2021 534 1,522 117 18,914 369 1,977 7,376 226 119 500 348 2,142 2,337 36,483 2022 550 1,572 120 19,539 389 2,076 7,696 233 124 515 372 2,186 2,390 37,761 2023 567 1,622 123 20,184 409 2,180 8,024 239 129 531 397 2,230 2,445 39,082 2024 583 1,675 126 20,851 431 2,289 8,370 246 134 548 425 2,275 2,501 40,454 2025 600 1,729 129 21,539 454 2,403 8,734 253 139 565 454 2,321 2,559 41,881 2026 618 1,785 133 22,251 478 2,523 9,114 261 145 583 485 2,368 2,618 43,361 2027 636 1,843 136 22,986 504 2,650 9,510 268 150 601 519 2,416 2,679 44,897 2028 654 1,902 139 23,745 530 2,782 9,924 276 156 620 555 2,465 2,741 46,490 Growth 3.9% 3.2% 2.5% 3.4% 5.3% 7.9% 4.3% 2.9% 5.2% 3.1% 6.9% 2.4% 2.7% 3.7% Rate Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Interim Report 1-8 1.4 FUEL SUPPLY The forecast levelized price of distillate over 2014-2028, the assumed study period for the new projects being considered, is US$22.45/GJ. Each country except Dominica has at least one lower cost fuel option, and many countries have more than one. Table 1-3 provides the comparative prices. Distillate, LNG, and pipeline gas can be compared directly because they can fuel the same generators. Coal fuels generators with higher capital costs and higher heat rates, which must be taken into account in comparing fuel options. The prices of all fuels except distillate vary from country to country because they include transportation costs that vary. Table 1-3 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 Fuels Selected in Levelized Fuel Price, US$/GJ Addition to Coal and Fuel Country Distillate Selected Coal Distillate Antigua and Barbuda None N/A 12.31 22.45 Barbados Pipeline Gas 7.39 7.77 22.45 Dominica Distillate only N/A N/A 22.45 Dominican Republic LNG 8.73 4.19 22.45 Grenada None N/A 12.31 22.45 Guadeloupe Pipeline Gas 10.88 7.77 22.45 Haiti LNG 12.73 7.77 22.45 Jamaica LNG 10.16 4.85 22.45 Jamaica North LNG 10.90 4.85 22.45 Martinique Pipeline Gas 8.99 7.77 22.45 St. Kitts and Nevis None N/A 12.31 22.45 St. Lucia Pipeline Gas 10.49 9.04 22.45 St. Vincent and None N/A 12.31 22.45 Grenadines Coal is an optional fuel for every country except Dominica, where preliminary analysis showed it to be more costly than distillate on a US$/GJ basis. Table 1-3 shows the following: Every country except Dominica has at least one fuel option lower in price than distillate Pipeline gas is the lowest cost natural gas option for every country reached by the ECGP: Barbados, Martinique, St. Lucia, and Guadeloupe Coal is the only optional fuel for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and Grenadines LNG is the lowest cost natural gas option for Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Jamaica North Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-9 CNG was considered and was the lowest cost gas option for several countries, but for those countries was always higher in cost than distillate and therefore does not appear in Table 15-1. It was considerably lower than distillate for some countries, but was more costly than LNG in those countries. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option for some countries. 1.5 PROJECT AND TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS Screening analysis is an approach to comparing the costs of different technologies to determine the least cost technology across the range of annual capacity factors: Uses simplified representations of generation costs to help identify least cost generating technologies Plots annual cost in $/kW-year vs. capacity factor for a set of power plant and/or fuel options The cost in $/kW-yr can also be easily expressed in cents/kWh, which are also of interest but are curved and somewhat harder to interpret than the straight lines in $/kW-yr Annual cost is sum of: Annualized investment-related costs based on initial capital investment, discount rate, and plant lifetime Fixed annual operation and maintenance (O&M) Variable cost (includes fuel cost and variable O&M costs) per kWh times capacity factor times hours per year Selects lowest cost resources at each capacity factor, producing the "least-cost line" for that set of resources 1.5.1 Isolated Countries / Islands Figure 1-4 illustrates the screening analysis approach. It presents the Fossil Least Cost Line (Fossil LCL) that applies for the Dominican Republic. The word "Fossil" means that only fossil fueled generation is included in determining the LCL. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises 50 MW GT on LNG for capacity factors of zero through 20%, the 300 MW CC on LNG for capacity factors from 25% through 40%, and the conventional coal plant for capacity factors from 45% through 90%. In other words, the generation expansion plan based on this analysis would include gas turbines for peaking duty, combined cycles for mid-range duty, and conventional coal for base load duty. In order to achieve the Fossil LCL the Dominican Republic would have to undertake large capital investments for expansion related to coal and LNG transportation, and for coal plants themselves. This may pose a challenge, even if the desire to do so exists. LNG is preferable for application at lower capacity factors, coal for application at higher capacity factors. The scenario analysis provides more information on which is preferable overall, if doing both is not feasible. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-10 Figure 1-5 expands upon Figure 1-4 by adding wind, small hydro, and fossil options to the graph of Figure 1-1. The small hydro line coincidentally overlaps with the wind with backup line at capacity factors from 30% to 40%. Wind with backup, which is typically a better comparison than wind without backup, is now marginally economic at the capacity factors where it might operate at a good site. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 50 MW gas turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 1-5 also illustrates what might occur if neither coal nor LNG is available for future generation for the Dominican Republic. The periwinkle line represents the cost of a 300 MW HFO-fueled steam plant. Without expanded supplies of LNG or coal, costs will more than triple at high capacity factors. Dominican Republic has under construction or planned considerable new small hydro and wind generation. Figure 1-5 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be identified. 2,500 80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 50 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr 70 2,000 300 MW CC LNG US$/kW-yr Annual Cost, $/kW-year 300 MW Conv Coal, US$/kW-yr 60 Cost, US cents/kWh Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh 50 1,500 40 1,000 30 20 500 10 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, % Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-11 2,500 80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 70 Annual Cost, $/kW-year 2,000 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr 300 MW ST HFO DR US$/kW-yr 60 Cost, US cents/kWh Small Hydro US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh 50 1,500 40 1,000 30 20 500 10 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, % Figure 1-5 Other Options for Dominican Republic The bullets below summarize the least cost technology/fossil fuel combination by country as determined by screening analysis. This considers the countries and islands as isolated systems. For some countries, imports via submarine cable (to be discussed later) provide a lower cost solution. We eliminated the technology/fuel combinations that were least cost at only one annual capacity factor, such as zero or 90%. Scenario analysis generally supports these conclusions, though multiple fuels were not used as much. Individual Countries Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines: 10 MW MSD on distillate for peaking and mid-range duty, and the coal-fueled CFB for base load duty Coal-fueled CFB is only marginally more economic than distillate fueled medium speed diesels (MSD) plants; CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make the distillate- fueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units Dominica, St. Kitts, and Nevis: 5 MW MSD on distillate for peaking, mid-range, and base load duty St. Kitts and Nevis are fortunate that a geothermal resource sufficient to serve all their demand has been confirmed and is in the process of development. For Dominica it seems highly probable that a geothermal resource sufficient to serve at least local demand will be confirmed and developed. None of these islands may not need to install any new distillate-fueled generation. Dominican Republic: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 300 MW CC on LNG for mid-range duty, and 300 MW conventional coal plant for base load duty Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-12 The Dominican Republic already has an LNG terminal and coal-fueled power plants. Scenario analysis shows that coal is preferred if only one fuel can be selected for future additions. However, incorporating CO2 costs in the analysis would compromise coal's advantage. With the Dominican Republic's large demand, expanding the use of both fuels may be feasible, even if new facilities are needed. Haiti: 20 MW LSD on LNG for peaking, mid-range, and base load duty. LNG provides very large benefits but requires significant up-front capital expenditures Jamaica and Jamaica North: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 20 MW LSD on LNG for mid-range duty, and 50 MW coal-fueled CFB base load duty Today Jamaica and Jamaica North have neither fuel. It seems unlikely that they would want to develop both fuels. If only one is to be developed, LNG is preferred, and its advantage would increase if CO2 costs are incorporated in the analysis. We emphasize that for some countries, imports via submarine cable provide a lower cost solution. This is addressed in the next subsection. Sub-regional Gas Market The ECGP links the markets of the four countries and provides the benefits of economies of scale compared to individual development. Barbados, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and St. Lucia: 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for peaking duty and 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas for mid-range and base load duty For all four countries the pipeline gas is less than half as costly as distillate. For all but St. Lucia, LNG is more costly than pipeline gas but significantly less costly than distillate. The low gas price reduces the benefits of renewables and for Martinique and Guadeloupe makes importing geothermal power from Dominica via submarine cable marginal. Figure 1-6 illustrates the ECGP gas connections among the countries. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-13 Figure 1-6 Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) Proposed Route 1.5.2 Sub-regional Electricity Markets The first three bullets below show the interconnections studied with greatest emphasis. All the interconnections were submarine cables except the Dominican Republic ­ Haiti link noted in the bottom bullet. The interconnections are presented in Figures 1-7 to 1-13. For each interconnection we note its capacity in MW, length in km, cost per kW for interconnection and related facilities only, source of export power, and economic attractiveness. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-14 Nevis ­ St. Kitts, 50 MW submarine cable capacity, 5 km submarine cable length, US$328/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, highly economic Dominica ­ Martinique, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, marginally economic if displaced fuel is gas from ECGP, more economic if displaced fuel is higher cost Dominica ­ Guadeloupe, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, moderately economic if displaced fuel is gas from ECGP, more economic if displaced fuel is higher cost Nevis ­ Puerto Rico, 400 MW, 400 km, US$1,791/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, highly economic if displaced fuel is HFO, not economic if displaced fuel is LNG Nevis ­ US Virgin Islands, 80 MVA, 320 km, US$3,541/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, only marginally economic even though the displaced fuel is distillate Saba ­ St. Maarten, 100 MW, 60 km, US$528/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export, highly economic if displaced fuel is distillate and St. Maarten can accept 100 MW United States (Florida) ­ Cuba, 400 MW, 400 km, US$1,791/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), export from coal-fueled steam plant or gas-fueled combined cycle, highly economic if displaced fuel is HFO Dominican Republic ­ Haiti, 250 MW, 563 km, US$1,899/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), land interconnection, export from HFO fueled steam plant, not economic unless export is from lower cost unit/fuel combination We also developed basic data and cost estimates for four potential interconnections that might form part of a "Northern Ring", a conceptual set of interconnections in the northern Caribbean, potentially linking Florida ­ Cuba ­ Haiti ­ Dominican Republic ­ Puerto Rico ­ Nevis, or some subset of those areas. The Northern Ring interconnections not covered above include: Puerto Rico ­ Dominican Republic, 400 MW, 150 km, US$705/kW (interconnection and related facilities only) Haiti ­ Cuba, 400 MW, 200 km, US$705/kW (interconnection and related facilities only) Haiti ­ Jamaica, 400 MW, 250 km, US$998/kW (interconnection and related facilities only) Florida ­ Haiti, 400 MW, 1,100 km, US$3,488/kW (interconnection and related facilities only We did not conduct economic analysis on these four interconnections. The cost per kW for the three shorter interconnections is in what might be an economically viable range if the sending country had low power costs and the importing country's displaced fuel was distillate, HFO, or crude. The Florida ­ Haiti interconnection appears to be outside that range. Costs for the middle Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-15 islands would involve their sharing some of the costs of interconnections closer to the low-cost source, making favorable economics more difficult to achieve. Figure 1-7 Dominica Interconnections Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-16 Figure 1-8 Nevis ­ Puerto Rico and Nevis ­ US Virgin Islands Interconnections Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-17 Figure 1-9 Saba ­ St. Maarten Interconnection Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-18 Figure 1-10 Haiti ­ Dominican Republic Interconnection Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-19 Figure 1-11 United States (Florida) ­ Cuba Interconnection Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-20 Figure 1-12 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-21 Figure 1-13 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-22 1.5.3 Renewable Energy Wind, geothermal, small hydro, and biomass technology/fuel combinations have the potential, at a good site, to be considerably less costly than distillate fueled power generation. The three lowest cost resources for operation at capacity factors above about 30% are renewables: geothermal, wind (including the cost of backup generation), and small hydro. This assumes that high quality sites can be identified and acquired. Solar PV and solar trough CSP are not competitive for bulk power generation. There are many small solar PV installations in Martinique due to subsidies, and solar PV is competitive for off-grid locations. If a lower cost fuel such as pipeline gas were the competitive fuel, the advantage of the renewable technology would be less. Figure 1-14 compares renewable technologies to the Distillate LCL that results when distillate is the only fuel available. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Distillate LCL, in blue, represents the benefit of a renewable energy option. Its generation would displace generation at a cost along that line. Where a renewable energy option's line is below the blue line, there is a net benefit. It reduces costs elsewhere that are more than its own costs. Where it is above the blue line, it represents a net cost. Most of the renewable technologies are shown at a range of capacity factors they might reasonably achieve at a good site. Geothermal is also based on a good site, and is shown over the entire capacity factor range because it is not limited by resource availability once the resource has been defined. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 20 MW LSD at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Biomass costs assume that biomass costs the same as export coal in the US. Figure 1-14 shows that all but two of the renewable energy technologies have the potential, at a good site, to be considerably less costly than distillate fueled power generation. Solar PV and solar trough with six hour storage are above the Distillate LCL. If a lower cost fuel such as pipeline gas were the competitive fuel, the advantage of the renewable technology would be less and might disappear. Figure 1-15 compares renewable technologies to the Fossil LCL for Barbados, which has the lowest cost gas fuel of any of the countries studied. The renewable technologies offer much smaller net benefits, small hydro and wind with storage are marginally economic, biomass is not economic, and the technologies that were not economic before are less competitive. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-23 2,500 80 Distillate LCL, US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 70 2,000 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Commercial PV 500 kW Annual Cost, $/kW-year 60 Cost, US cents/kWh 20 MW Geothermal Small Hydro 50 1,500 Biomass Solar Trough 6 hr Storage 40 Distillate LCL, US cents/kWh 1,000 30 20 500 10 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, % Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options 2,000 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 60 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Solar Trough 6 hr Storage 50 Series6 Annual Cost, $/kW-year 1,500 Cost, US cents/kWh Commercial PV 500 kW 20 MW Geothermal 40 Small Hydro Biomass 1,000 Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh 30 20 500 10 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, % Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-24 1.5.4 CO2 Costs If a tax or similar levy were attributed to each tonne of CO2 emissions, the cost of using fuels would increase. This would open wider the economic window for technologies that produce lower or no CO2 emissions. However, all the countries today primary fuel is distillate and/or HFO, so the window is already quite wide. We investigated the impact if a cost of US$50/tonne were attributed to CO2 emissions. At US$50/tonne, the effective price of fuels would increase in a range from US$2.52 for distillate to US$4.41 for coal, representing increases ranging from 15% for distillate to 91% for the lowest cost coal for the Study islands. In the bullets below we measure the impact of CO2 costs by how technology choices change when it is applied. Countries with small demand: The fuel prices are high even when coal fuels some of the least-cost generation. For Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines, the preferred fuel would switch from coal to distillate. The renewable energy resources that were economic before are now somewhat more economic, and those that were not economic edge closer to being competitive. Countries with medium or high demand. The fuels are much less expensive than distillate and therefore the displaced generation is lower in cost, narrowing the economic window for alternatives. For the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Jamaica North, incorporating CO2 costs in the analysis would probably eliminate coal's advantage over LNG or increase LNG's advantage over coal. With no CO2 cost the renewables that were economic for the islands with small demand are still economic, though in some cases only marginally so. Incorporating CO2 costs makes renewables more competitive. 1.6 REGIONAL STRATEGIES For all Study countries combined, costs including fuel savings from exports and interconnection costs were: US$31,985 million for the Base Case Scenario US$29,424 million for the Fuel Scenario US$29,415 million for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario US$27,619 million for the Integrated Scenario Table 1-4 presents cost differences among Scenarios by system as well as differences in Scenario total costs. The Fuel Scenario and Interconnection/Renewable Scenarios both reduce costs by about US$2.5 billion compared to the Base Case. The Integrated Scenario reduces costs by Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-25 about US$ 4.3 billion, showing that the Integrated Scenario captures most of the individual benefits of each of the other two Scenarios. Table 1-4 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (million US$) Interconnection/ Fuel Integrated Renewable Scenario Scenario Scenario Antigua and Barbuda 12 20 31 Barbados 906 39 912 Dominica 0 604 10 Dominican Republic 444 350 721 Grenada 32 17 45 Haiti 433 76 476 Jamaica 500 138 628 St. Kitts 0 159 159 Nevis 0 1,135 1,135 St. Lucia 216 18 221 St. Vincent and Grenadines 18 14 29 Total 2,561 2,570 4,365 The costs of the interconnections and the fuel savings from the exports of geothermal power are attributed to Dominica and Nevis. All numbers in Table 15-2 have positive values (except for zeros for Dominica, St. Kitts, and Nevis for the Fuel Scenario), meaning that each Scenario and each country in each Scenario provides cost savings compared to the Base Case. 1.7 COUNTRY SUMMARIES Each country summary below presents paragraphs on: Overview Current and Forecast Load Fossil Fuel Options Renewable Generation Potential Development Scenarios (development plans for the Base Case Scenario, the Fuel Scenario, the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, and the Integrations Scenario) Discussion of Country Results 1.7.1 Antigua and Barbuda Overview: Antigua Public Utility Authority (APUA) is responsible for the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Antigua and Barbuda. APUA purchases most of the power from Antigua Power Company (APC), a private company. Antigua and Barbuda Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-26 currently rely exclusively on diesel for power generation. Efforts are underway to convert some of the diesel engines to HFO as an alternate fuel. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2009 peak demand is just over 50 MW, with net generation of over 300 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 100 MW, with net generation increasing to around 650 GWh (increase rate of 3.9% per year). Losses in the transmission and distribution system are projected to decrease from over 30% in 2009 to around 10% by 2028. Fossil Fuel Options: Imported coal was considered as an alternative fuel. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study did not find natural gas to be an economically viable fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Antigua and Barbuda. A 2008 Energy Engineering Corp. report indicated that up to 400 MW of wind power can be developed on the islands, primarily on Barbuda. Solar PV potential is estimated at 27 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: All four Study Scenarios assumed that the committed system additions of the Casada Gardens units will be installed during 2011-2013. With those unit additions, system reserve margin requirements would be satisfied until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system demand growth will require building additional generation units. For the Base Case Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. For the Fuel Scenario, coal-fueled circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plants are marginally more economic than distillate fueled medium speed diesels (MSD) plants; new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make the distillate-fueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units. Conventional (large-scale) LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option. By 2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of US$12 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed development of new diesel units as in the Base Case Scenario, with the addition of 14 MW of new wind units. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$20 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed new generation units are 10 MW CFB units, as in the Fuel Scenario, and the addition of 14 MW of new wind units, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-27 generation provides combined savings of US$31 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results Adding coal-fueled CFB technology reduces net present worth costs by US$12 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, with a cost advantage compared to distillate-fueled MSD technology ranging from 2% at 55% capacity factor to 10% at 80% capacity factor. That cost advantage disappears if costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. Conventional LNG is more costly than distillate, but mid-scale LNG might be a viable fuel option, justifying a more detailed analysis. Development of wind generation reduces net present worth costs by US$20 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. With that assumption wind is much lower in cost than distillate fueled generation. Small hydro and biomass would also be economic, if good sites can be identified. The benefits are relatively unaffected by the choice of fuel for the country's fossil units. 1.7.2 Barbados Overview: Barbados Light and Power (BL&P), a private company, is responsible for power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Barbados. Existing installed generation of around 240 MW, mostly comprising of low and medium speed diesel units, substantially exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable reserve margin. BL&P is looking to diversify its fuel mix which is mostly dependent on imported oil products. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 peak demand was 164 MW, with net generation of over 1,000 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to double to around 325 MW, with net generation increasing to around 1,900 GWh (increase rate of 3.5% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG or through the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP), and imported coal were considered as alternative fuel options. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study found natural gas delivered through ECGP to be the most economically attractive fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: No studies on country-specific overall wind and solar potential are available. We estimated Barbados wind potential to be at least 10 MW based on an already approved project. Solar PV potential is estimated at 26 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: All four Scenarios assumed that the committed system additions of the nine 16 MW Trent units will be installed. The first six units were added during 2011-2013 while the next three units were added when required to match the load growth. All Trent unit additions would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2025. During 2026-2028 the Barbados system will require new capacity additions. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-28 For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 40 MW (2 x 20 MW units) to meet the required capacity. For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that in this scenario most existing and all new units are assumed to use natural gas as a fuel, supplied through the ECGP. The Fuel Scenario shows that the introduction of ECGP natural gas provides net present worth savings of US$906 million compared to the Base Case Scenario.. For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this Scenario is the addition of 45 MW of new wind units. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$39 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. For the Integrated Scenario, the availability of natural gas is assumed, as in the Fuel Scenario, combined with the addition of 45 MW of new wind units, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show net present worth savings of US$912 million over the Base Scenario, only slightly more than for the Fuel Scenario. Discussion of Country Results Barbados has four fossil fuel options that offer significant economic benefits compared to continued reliance on oil products: natural gas via the ECGP, LNG, CNG, and coal. By far the most attractive is the ECGP option, which provides net present worth savings of $906 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. Its cost per kWh compared to distillate fueled generation ranges from less than half at 20% capacity factor to less than 40% at 80% capacity factor. If the ECGP does not materialize, the other fuel options should be considered. They would offer significant savings compared to distillate, though not as dramatic as ECGP gas offers. Development of wind generation reduces Interconnection/Renewable Scenario net present worth costs by US$39 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. However, when ECGP gas is available, as is assumed in the Integrated Scenario, adding wind generation increases savings by only US$6 million. Wind is only marginally economic, as would be small hydro if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. This illustrates the high dependence of wind generation savings on the assumed fuel supply option, and the possibility that wind generation penetration might be limited to only a few of the best wind sites. 1.7.3 Dominica Overview: Dominica Electricity Services Limited (DOMLEC) is a sole producer responsible for the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Dominica. Existing installed generation, comprising high and medium speed diesel units and hydro units, exceeds peak Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-29 demand by 35% providing a comfortable reserve margin. Dominica is looking to diversify its fuel mix, which is mostly dependent on imported oil products. Current and Forecast Load: The country's current peak demand is around 15 MW, with net generation of around 90 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to 25 MW, with net generation increasing to around 150 GWh (increase rate of 2.5% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Due to the low electricity demand on the island, the least-cost fuel is distillate because the fixed costs associated with all other fuels produce higher unit costs in US$/GJ. Renewable Generation Potential: Based on the ongoing assessment of potential at the Watton Waven field in central Dominica, and West Indies Power's exploration in the Soufriere area, geothermal potential is estimated to be adequate to supply 100 MW of geothermal power plants. Drilling of the first three slim (exploratory) wells is scheduled to start in June 2010 in the Soufriere area near the southern coast. Solar PV potential is estimated at 45 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Dominica also has small-size hydro and wind potential. Development Scenarios: Starting in 2012 Dominica will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 15 MW (3 x 5 MW units) to meet the required capacity. Dominica does not have a potentially less expensive fossil fuel option. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of a 20 MW geothermal unit in 2012 to satisfy local needs. It also assumes submarine cable electrical interconnections with Martinique and Guadeloupe, and the addition of two 92.5 MW units in 2014 to support exports to those two countries. The results show large benefits of geothermal development in this Scenario, with net present worth savings of US$604 million compared with the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed assumes the same geothermal additions as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The key is the assumed fuel savings due to energy exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe. The Integrated Scenario assumes construction of the ECGP and natural gas deliveries to those two countries, so fuel savings on Martinique and Guadeloupe are reduced because the imports are replacing lower cost natural gas (rather than distillate) based generation. The Integrated Scenario result shows combined savings of only US$10 million, demonstrating that savings are highly dependent on the assumed fuel supply option for Martinique and Guadeloupe. Savings of US$10 million is considerably less than the savings from the much smaller supply to Dominica alone. Discussion of Country Results: Because its low demand means that no fossil fuel options appear economic compared to distillate, geothermal development is particularly important for Dominica. It seems probable that a geothermal resource at least large enough to serve Dominica's demand will be confirmed. This would be the most important result from the country's point of view, as it would insulate the Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-30 country from the high price of distillate, and the uncertainty associated with variation in that price over time. It would also reduce CO2 emissions. Considering the low cost of power of geothermal power, wind generation is only marginally economic compared to geothermal for domestic consumption on Dominica. Small hydro also would be marginally economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. Confirmation of a resource sufficient to serve exports to Martinique and/or Guadeloupe is less certain. The benefits of such development are also less certain. Almost US$600 million in savings when distillate is the displaced fuel disappear when ECGP gas is assumed to be the displaced fuel. Martinique and Guadeloupe have another fossil fuel option, LNG, with lower cost than distillate. In the Fuel Scenario, LNG would provide significant savings compared to the Base Case Scenario, though less than the savings with ECGP gas. It is not clear how much the savings would be in the Integrated Scenario, but they would be higher than US$10 million. It is clear that more detailed analysis of the Martinique and Guadeloupe systems would be required to determine the desirability of developing geothermal power on Dominica for export to those countries. That will depend on the fuel supply (continuing with distillate, ECGP, LNG) they select as well as factors such as costs and the number of units that could be converted to natural gas. 1.7.4 Dominican Republic Overview: Prior to 1997 all the generation, transmission, and distribution assets of the Dominican Republic (DR) were owned by the state owned company CDE. In 1997 a capitalization process divided the three entities and the stocks of the companies were sold t private investors. Now the DR has eleven different private thermal power generating companies and a government owned hydroelectric entity, Empresa de Generación Hidroeléctrica Dominicana (EGEHID). AES Dominica, the largest thermal power generator, is owned by AES an international utility company. Other generation companies are La Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Haina (EGE Haina), Generadora Palamara La Vega (GPLV), La Compañía De Electricidad De San Pedro De Macorís (CESPM) and five smaller companies. There are three private and one public distribution companies and a public owned transmission company. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 peak demand was 2,168 MW, with net generation of over 11,600 GWh, making it by far the largest power market of all studied countries. By 2028 peak demand is projected to double to over 4,400 MW, with net generation increasing to around 23,750 GWh (increase rate of 3.4% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Today the DR has power plants using coal and natural gas derived from LNG, but most of its existing generation uses HFO. Expanding the use of coal and LNG offers the potential to reduce costs and were considered as alternative fuel options. Renewable Generation Potential: The government enacted a law in 2007 defining goals for future renewable energy development. The goal is to have 25% renewable energy by 2025. About 350 MW of wind projects have already been approved. In addition, there is significant additional wind potential based on provisional studies. There are also estimates of 2,899 MW of Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-31 solar PV projects, but these would not be economic based on current estimates. Construction is under way, or contracts have been signed, for 356 MW of new hydro plants. In addition, several hundred MW of new hydro projects are in different stages of development. Development Scenarios: In 2010 and 2011, installation of already committed hydro and wind resources will add enough new capacity to cover the short-term load growth in all Scenarios. Starting in 2012 the Dominican Republic system will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 300 MW combined cycle units using LNG, with a few additions of 50 MW GT units to cover peaking generation. Results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW) of CC units and 100 MW of GT units. For the Fuel Scenario, new additions are assumed to be coal based units. The first additions are planned (Montecristi and Haltillo-Azua) units, followed by generic 300 MW conventional coal units using imported coal. This Scenario again includes additions of 50 MW GT units to supply peaking generation. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW) of coal units and 100 MW of GT units. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of US$444 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of renewable energy resources. There is no electrical interconnection. Most assumed generation is the same as in the Base Case Scenario, but the "Renewable Scenario" includes the addition of 540 MW of new wind units (30 MW each year starting in 2011). This Scenario does not include interconnection with Haiti, which separate analysis determined not to be economic. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows potential savings of US$350 million from introduction of wind generation only. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. This Scenario shows combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show savings of US$721 million or about 90% of the sum of savings from the other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results: The Dominican Republic now uses a wider range of fuels than any other country, and has significant renewable resource options. It can expand its use of coal and LNG while adding wind and hydro. The Fuel Scenario results indicate that using coal instead of LNG (used in the Base Case Scenario) provides savings of US$444 million. The cost advantage of coal compared to LNG ranges from 1% at 45% capacity factor to 18% at 80% capacity factor, and disappears if costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. As with Barbados, the relatively low fuel cost makes renewable generation economically less attractive. Wind generation is only marginally economic. Small hydro would be marginally economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-32 1.7.5 Grenada Overview: Grenada Energy Services Ltd. (GRENLEC) is a private energy provider that owns all the generation and transmission facilities in Grenada, Carriacou, and Petit Martinique. GRENLEC's installed generation, mostly low speed diesels, exceeds 2008 peak demand by about 81%, providing a comfortable reserve margin. Most of the generating units were installed after 2002 and are relatively efficient. The diversification of the fuel/energy mix and the use of alternative energy sources are two critical strategic objectives. Current and Forecast Load: The country's peak demand is around 30 MW, with net generation of around 190 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase significantly to around 84 MW, with net generation increasing to around 530 GWh (increase rate of 5.3% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Imported coal was considered as an alternative fuel. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study did not find natural gas to be an economically viable fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Grenada. Initial wind measurements and project installations are underway. Grenada is also encouraging small photovoltaic installations. Solar PV potential is estimated at 21 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Grenada's geothermal potential is estimated at 400 MW, but there appears to be no exploration under way and no development planned. Development Scenarios: Grenada will require new capacity addition starting in 2013. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. Conventional (large-scale) LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option. By 2028 the system will need an additional 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of US$32 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed new generation units are the same as in the Base Case. The difference in this scenario is the addition of 12 MW of new wind units. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$17 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind generation provides combined Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-33 savings of US$44 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results Adding coal-fueled CFB technology reduces net present worth costs by US$12 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, with a cost advantage compared to distillate-fueled MSD technology ranging from 2% at 55% capacity factor to 12% at 90% capacity factor. That cost advantage disappears if costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. Conventional LNG is more costly than distillate, but mid-scale LNG might be a viable fuel option, justifying a more detailed analysis. Development of wind generation reduces net present worth costs by US$20 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. With that assumption wind is much lower in cost than distillate fueled generation. Small hydro and biomass would also be economic, if good sites can be identified. The benefits are relatively unaffected by the choice of fuel for the country's fossil units. 1.7.6 Haiti Overview: Electricité de Haiti (Electricity of Haiti) has the monopoly for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution in the country. EDH grid consists of five isolated areas, of which the Metropolitan including Port au Prince is by far the largest, with 80% of total demand. Only about 12% of the country is electrified. Generation, transmission, and distribution facilities are old and need rehabilitation. Operational capacity of generating units is only about 155 MW. About half of all demand may not be served due to load shedding. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 unconstrained peak demand was estimated at 215 MW, but due to load shedding net generation was only around 600 GWh. With the assumption that the economic conditions will improve and generation resources will over time catch up with demand, by 2028 unconstrained peak demand is projected to increase to around 570 MW with net generation increasing to around 2,800 GWh (increase rate of 5% per year for peak demand and 7.9% for energy generation). Fossil Fuel Options: LNG and imported coal were considered as alternative fuels. The analysis found LNG to be the economically preferred fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Haiti. A Study of wind at three sites was conducted with good results. Haiti also has untapped resources of at least 50 MW in small hydro projects. Solar PV potential is estimated at 1,654 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: Haiti's power system is already short of generation resources in 2009. We calculated that the already committed resources and an additional 80 MW of low speed diesel units (4 x 20 MW) will need to be built during 2009 just to meet the existing demand. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-34 For the Base Case Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units using distillate oil. Starting in 2010 the system will need another 20 MW (in some years 40 MW) in new units each year to cover projected load growth. By 2028 the system will need to install a total of 540 MW of diesel units. For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that in this scenario all new units will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied starting in 2014 from a new LNG terminal. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of LNG provides net present worth savings of US$433 million compared to the Base Scenario. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may also provide an economically attractive option. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed generation is the same as in the Base Case Scenario, but includes the addition of 81 MW of new wind generation. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$76 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both LNG as a fuel and wind generation provides combined savings of US$476 million over the Base Case Scenario. The results show that 55% of the wind savings in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario appear in the Integrated Scenario. The results of separate analysis which studied only interconnection and exports from Dominican Republic to Haiti show, on a net present worth basis, system cost in Dominican Republic increased by US$322 million when HFO fuels the exported generation while system cost in Haiti decreased by US$556 million. The total savings are thus US$235 million. This was compared with the net present worth costs of building and operating the transmission line calculated at US$242 million. The total cost increases outweighed the potential benefits and therefore a transmission interconnection was not included in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario or the Integrated Scenario. Only if LNG fuels the exported generation, which seems unlikely, does the interconnection become economically attractive. Discussion of Country Results: The poor condition and inadequate amount of generation in Haiti make all near-term additions highly cost effective until an adequate reserve margin is established. LNG is much less costly than distillate, leading to the savings of US$433 million. Coal is only slightly more expensive than LNG, and would also provide large savings compared to distillate, but becomes significantly less economic when costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. Development of wind generation in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario reduces net present worth costs by US$76 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. In the Integrated Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-35 Scenario, because it is displacing lower cost LNG rather than distillate, wind is less attractive but is still economic. Small hydro would also be economic, and biomass would be marginally economic, if good sites can be identified. The land-based interconnection with Dominican Republic appears to be not economic. The main issue is the high cost of the fuel (HFO) assumed to supply the export generation. Because of its length, the terrain, and the relatively low amount of power being transmitted, the interconnection itself is costly despite being on land. 1.7.7 Jamaica Overview: Jamaica Public Service (JPS) is the sole distributor of electricity in Jamaica. It is a vertically integrated company involved with generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It also buys power from four independent power producers in Jamaica. The government has reorganized the energy department under the Ministry of Energy and Mining (MEM). They set energy policy and have recently issued a draft of the new energy policy. The main focus is on developing energy diversity, since currently 95% of power is generated by petroleum products. The ministry has been having extensive negotiations with major users of fuel, gas suppliers and foreign partners to help develop a natural gas industry in Jamaica. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 peak demand was 622 MW, with net generation of over 4,100 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 1,500 MW, with net generation increasing to around 10,000 GWh (increase rate of 4.3% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG, and imported coal were considered as alternative fuel options. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Jamaica. Detailed engineering is under way to expand Wigdon Wind Farm by 18 MW. Jamaica also has limited potential for small hydro and biomass development. The current resource plan includes development of an estimated 20 MW municipal waste project in Kingston. Solar PV potential is estimated at 650 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: During the next four years, until 2014, we assumed that the planned resources, including the Kingston, Hunts Bay, Windalco, Jamalco, and Wigton units, will be built to cover the load growth. If those resources are built, Jamaica will require new capacity additions starting in 2015. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 100 MW conventional coal units using imported coal. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 1,100 MW (11 x 100 MW units) to cover projected load growth. For the Fuel Scenario, starting in 2015 new additions are assumed to be 100 MW combined cycle units using natural gas supplied from two new LNG terminals, one on the southern side of the island and one on the northern. Natural gas will become available during 2014 and by 2014 about 450 MW in existing units are also assumed to be converted to use natural gas. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-36 attractive option. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 1,100 MW (11 x 100 MW units) to cover projected load growth. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of LNG provides net present worth savings of US$500 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed system unit additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is the addition of 219 MW of wind generation by 2028. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$138 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both LNG as a fuel and wind generation provides combined savings of US$628 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results: The Base Case Scenario assumes that the infrastructure to deliver and generate with coal will be put in place. If this does not occur, the other Scenarios' benefits would be much larger. Coal-fueled generation is less costly than LNG, but only at mid to high capacity factors. LNG has the advantage that in the Fuel Scenario it can displace HFO in existing plants as well as the new coal generation added in the Base Case Scenario. Replacing new coal generation in the Base Case Scenario with LNG in the Fuel Scenario, and displacing HFO use in existing plants, leads to the savings of US$500 million. Coal becomes significantly less economic when costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. Development of wind generation in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario reduces net present worth costs by US$138 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. Wind is economic, as would be small hydro if good sites can be identified. The benefits are relatively unaffected by the choice of fuel for the country's fossil units. 1.7.8 St. Kitts and Nevis Overview: The two islands have distinct utility structures. The electricity service in St. Kitts is provided by a department of the St. Kitts Government. All generation is by slow and medium speed diesel units. A plan is underway to convert some of the units to HFO. The Nevis Electricity Co. Ltd. is a stand-alone Government entity supplying power to Nevis. All of Nevis generation is also by slow and medium speed diesel units. Current and Forecast Load: Current peak demand for both islands is less than 40 MW, with net generation of around 200 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to 85 MW, with net generation increasing to around 430 GWh (increase rate of 3.6% per year, with rates of 2.9% per year for St. Kitts and 5.2% per year for Nevis) Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-37 Fossil Fuel Options: Imported coal was considered as an alternative fuel. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study did not find natural gas to be an economically viable fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Nevis has significant geothermal resources estimated to support development of 300 MW in geothermal power plants. Production drilling of two production wells and one injector on Nevis is scheduled to begin June/July 2010, with the 10MW Nevis plant due to be on line in the first half of 2011. A 30 MW plant on Nevis, to serve demand on St. Kitts, is in late stages of planning. The islands also have potential to develop small 4-5 MW wind farms. Solar PV potential is estimated at 16 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: Starting in 2012 St. Kitts will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 35 MW (7 x 5 MW units) to cover projected load growth. Starting in 2011 Nevis will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 25 MW (5 x 5 MW units) to cover projected load growth. Neither St. Kitts nor Nevis has an alternative, potentially less expensive, fossil fuel option to be used for the Fuel Scenario. Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes that Nevis will be interconnected with St. Kitts by 2011 and the two 20 MW geothermal units at Nevis will supply 30 MW for St. Kitts and 10 MW for Nevis. No new generation units will be built on St. Kitts. Additionally, this scenario assumes two 200 MW geothermal units will be built on Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. A submarine cable connecting Nevis and Puerto Rico is also assumed to be completed by 2014. The St. Kitts results show net present worth savings of US$159 million compared with the Base Scenario, as the result of interconnection and geothermal development on Nevis. These saving are much higher than the increased costs of US$100 million on Nevis associated with serving St. Kitts load. Interconnection of St. Kitts and Nevis and geothermal development of Nevis to serve both islands is clearly a cost effective option. Further large potential benefits with net present worth savings of over US$1 billion on Nevis are the result of additional geothermal development, interconnection, and exports of energy to Puerto Rico. The Integrated Scenario assumes the same interconnection with Nevis by 2011 and no new generation units built on St. Kitts, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Discussion of Country Results: Because their low demand means that no fossil fuel options appear economic compared to distillate, geothermal development on Nevis is particularly important for St. Kitts and Nevis. It seems highly probable that a geothermal resource of at least 40 MW will be developed, based on exploratory well and signed contracts. This would be the most important result from the country's point of view, as it would insulate the country from the high price of distillate, and the Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-38 uncertainty associated with variation in that price over time. It would also reduce CO2 emissions. Considering the low cost of power of geothermal power, wind generation is only marginally economic compared to geothermal for domestic consumption on St. Kitts and Nevis. Small hydro also would be marginally economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. Development of a resource sufficient to serve exports to Puerto Rico is less certain, but West Indies Power indicates that exploration data supports at least 300 MW. The very large benefits associated with the development of 400 MW for export to Puerto Rico are based on the exports displacing HFO in Puerto Rico, which seem reasonable because HFO is the main fuel today. 1.7.9 St. Lucia Overview: St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd. (LUCELEC) is responsible for the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity on St. Lucia. Existing installed generation of around 75 MW, comprising of diesel units, exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable reserve margin. LUCELEC is looking to diversify its fuel mix, which is mostly dependent on imported oil products. The utility has adequate tariffs, reasonable regulation, and a strong financial position. Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 peak demand was 54 MW, with net generation of over 350 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase around 115 MW, with net generation increasing to around 650 GWh (increase rate of 3.2%). Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG or through the ECGP, and imported coal were considered as alternative fuel options. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study found natural gas delivered through the ECGP to be the most economical fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for St. Lucia. LUCELEC is pursuing a wind farm on land they already own and are starting measurement on several promising sites. St. Lucia also has rooftop solar PV installations at many locations. Solar PV potential is estimated at 36 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. There was significant geothermal exploration in the 1970s ­ 1980s, but the wells did not produce much steam. There appears to be some geothermal potential, but the rights to the resource for a long time were and may still be tied up with a developer. Development Scenarios: Starting in 2010 St. Lucia will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 80 MW (4 x 20 MW units) to meet the required capacity. For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that in this scenario most existing and all new units will be using natural gas as Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-39 a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the ECGP. Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of ECGP gas provides net present worth savings of US$216 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition by 2028 of 18 MW of wind generation. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Similar to the Barbados results, the Integrated Scenario net present worth savings of US$221 million or only US$5 million higher than the Fuels Scenario, showing that savings from wind generation are much smaller when the assumed displaced fuel is low cost gas rather than high cost distillate. Discussion of Country Results: St. Lucia has two fossil fuel options that offer significant economic benefits compared to continued reliance on oil products: natural gas via the ECGP and coal. By far the more attractive is the ECGP option, which in the Fuel Scenario provides net present worth savings of $216 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. Its cost per kWh compared to distillate fueled generation ranges from less than half at 20% capacity factor to less than 40% at 80% capacity factor. If the ECGP does not materialize, the coal option should be considered. It would offer significant savings compared to distillate, though not as dramatic as ECGP gas offers. ECGP gas could displace distillate in existing units as well as fuel new units. Development of wind generation reduces Interconnection/Renewable Scenario net present worth costs by US$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. However, when ECGP gas is available, as is assumed in the Integrated Scenario, adding wind generation increases savings by only US$5 million. Wind is only marginally economic, as would be small hydro if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. This illustrates the high dependence of wind generation savings on the assumed fuel supply option, and the possibility that wind generation penetration might be limited to only a few of the best wind sites. 1.7.10 St. Vincent and the Grenadines Overview: St. Vincent Electricity Service Ltd. (Vinlec) is a state owned corporation responsible for the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity on the islands. Existing installed generation of around 58 MW, mostly comprising low and medium speed diesel and small hydro units, exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable reserve margin. The St. Vincent Government's goal is to provide 20% of electricity from renewable resources. The Canouan Island has generating capacity of 2.5 MW and remaining islands have much smaller generating capacity. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-40 Current and Forecast Load: The country's 2008 peak demand was around 25 MW, with net generation of around 150 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 95 MW, with net generation increasing to around 550 GWh (increase rate of 6.9% per year). Fossil Fuel Options: Imported coal was considered as an alternative fuel. Due to the location and electricity demand on the island, the Study did not find natural gas to be an economically viable fuel option. Renewable Generation Potential: Wind and expansion of small hydro are the most promising renewable resources. The country announced its first 2 MW wind farm development, for Canouan Island. There appears to be some geothermal potential, but the rights to the resource are tied up with a developer. Solar PV potential is estimated at 23 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Development Scenarios: St. Vincent and Grenadines will require new capacity additions starting in 2017. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. For the Fuel Scenario, coal-fueled circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plants are marginally more economic than distillate fueled medium speed diesels (MSD) plants; new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make the distillate-fueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units. Conventional (large-scale) LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of US$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition of 14 MW by 2028 of wind generation. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$14 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind generation provides combined savings of US$29 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results Adding coal-fueled CFB technology reduces net present worth costs by US$12 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, with a cost advantage compared to distillate-fueled MSD technology Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-41 ranging from 2% at 55% capacity factor to 12% at 90% capacity factor. That cost advantage disappears if costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions. Conventional LNG is more costly than distillate, but mid-scale LNG might be a viable fuel option, justifying a more detailed analysis. Development of wind generation reduces net present worth costs by US$20 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. With that assumption wind is much lower in cost than distillate fueled generation. Small hydro and biomass would also be economic, if good sites can be identified. The benefits are relatively unaffected by the choice of fuel for the country's fossil units. 1.8 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the more detailed system analysis summarized in Table 1-4, we recommend the projects included in the Integrated Scenario as a basis for future more detailed analysis and development. The Integrated Scenario analysis showed that introducing new fuels and developing geothermal-based power over interconnections provide the most benefits and both could be part of the power system development. One exception was found to be the geothermal development on Dominica for exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe. Benefits of this option are large when distillate is the displaced fuel, but disappear when the ECGP is assumed to be built. The focus of this Study was on the economics as determined by annual cost of power for individual fuel supply and technology sets, and total net present value analysis for the four Scenarios. There are financial, institutional, and other barriers to achieving the least-cost economic solution, including: The capital investments required to obtain the economic benefits may be beyond the financing capability of some utilities Uncertainty in the input parameters, especially fuel price forecasts, means any course of action has a level of risk that may deter capital investment Development of electrical interconnections or the ECGP will require agreement among many parties, such as the utilities, private power producers, regulators, gas suppliers, and governments. This makes development more difficult, time- consuming, and costly. Utilities or countries may be concerned about relying on another utility or country for power or gas critical to its operations Environmental and economic regulation may prevent some projects or fuel choices from materializing Some countries suffer from a combination of issues that unfortunately are common in developing countries: Inadequate tariff levels High technical and non-technical losses Deteriorating equipment Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-42 Load shedding This Study provides a relatively high level overview of the fuels, generation technologies, and interconnection projects considered. In some cases we have identified marginal net benefits, in others multiple parties need to agree, in still others the utility might need to choose among several attractive alternatives. Much more detailed project-specific work would need to be completed to resolve uncertainties before proceeding with any major facility. Each of the main subject areas merits further support, but we suggest priority for the following. 1) Gas Pipeline The ECGP provides the most economic fuel for each island it reaches. The number of parties potentially involved (ECGPC, gas suppliers, utilities, regulators, financial institutions) suggest the need for support over a range of areas. 2) Geothermal Power Generation / Submarine Cable Projects The Nevis ­ St. Kitts link is highly economic and not technically challenging. The benefits of the Dominica ­ Martinique and Dominica ­ Guadeloupe links are large when distillate is the displace fuel but disappear or become much smaller when pipeline gas or other low-cost fuel is available. In other words, the ECGP and Dominica links are competitors and may be mutually exclusive. Other links (Nevis ­ Puerto Rico, United States (Florida) ­ Cuba also offer potentially large benefits but have larger uncertainties. 3) Renewable Energy The primary uncertainty with wind and geothermal power generation is identifying sites where the resource is good and site development costs are not a barrier. The expected potential for both wind and geothermal is large. Assisting in identifying such sites might be the most cost-effective method of fostering development. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 1-43 Section 2 Introduction 2.1 BACKGROUND The objective of this Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy (the Study) is to analyze the availability of technically and financially sound regional and sub-regional energy solutions for power generation rather than specific energy solutions for each Caribbean country. The countries of the Caribbean region face crucial energy challenges. Paramount among them is to manage their high dependence on oil (and oil products) that fuel their domestic economies, in particular the power sectors. Most countries' power plants rely primarily or entirely on imported diesel and heavy fuel oil (HFO). Most have small and fragmented power systems and there are no existing interconnections. Some regional projects, such as the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP), have been proposed but not yet materialized. Customers in the Caribbean countries already face some of the highest electricity tariffs worldwide, and their governments are increasingly concerned about the environmental burden of the current power generation, especially in tourist-driven economies. There are alternatives to nearly exclusive use of diesel and heavy fuel oil for power generation. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and pipeline natural gas may be economically and financially viable. Agricultural wastes, coal, and petroleum coke may also be viable options for fueling power generation. Geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro power plants exist in the Caribbean today and expansion of those renewable energy options may be feasible. Finally, development of submarine cable electrical interconnections among the countries would enable them to share lower cost resources, provide mutual support, gain economies of scale in power plants and systems, and obtain the benefits of power pools generally. The World Bank identified an assessment of the possibilities for developing regional/sub- regional energy supply markets for power generation as an important component of energy security planning work by the individual countries in the Caribbean. Accordingly the Study focuses on scenarios in which two or more countries share resources or activities. The Study also emphasizes renewable energy resources, not necessarily shared among countries. In April 2009 the World Bank contracted with Nexant to conduct this Study. Nexant subcontracted with Power Delivery Consultants, Inc. for its expertise in submarine cables. Our main counterparts in the region are the Caribbean Electric Utility Service Corporation (CARILEC), in St. Lucia, and many of the electric utilities in the region. The primary emphasis of the Study is on the nine countries in the Caribbean eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA) and/or the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). These nine include: Six small countries in the Lesser Antilles: St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica, total combined population about 600,000 Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Interim Report 2-1 Three countries located on two of the four islands in the Greater Antilles: Haiti and the Dominican Republic, both on the island Hispaniola, and Jamaica, total population about 22,000,000 The Study also considered other relevant countries that might be part of a regional energy solution. In addition to the nine countries mentioned above, we visited or obtained significant data on Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Martinique; somewhat less on Guadeloupe; and cursory information on Puerto Rico, Sint Maarten, and Cuba. The Study's Terms of Reference (TOR) specify that the Study team prepare in sequence an Inception Report following initial field work, a Draft Final Report, and a Final Report. Nexant delivered the Inception Report on 5 June 2009.At the World Bank's request, the Draft Final Report has been re-named the Interim Report, which was delivered on 30 November 2009. This Final Report is revised to include comments received from the World Bank and other reviewers. 2.2 STUDY TEAM As specified in the TOR, the Study Team includes the following individuals and specialties. The Study Team's combined experience exceeds 175 person-years. Peter Hindley, Power Generation Expert and Team Leader, from Nexant Bruce Degen, Natural Gas Expert (CNG, LNG, pipeline, and other fuels), from Nexant Graham Lawson, Power Transmission/Submarine Interconnection Expert, from Power Delivery Consultants Babul Patel, Renewable Expert (hydro, solar, geothermal, wind), from Nexant Miljenko Bradaric, Financial/Economic Expert, from Nexant. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Interim Report 2-2 Section 3 Approach 3.1 APPROACH Nexant's approach addressed each of the major parts listed in the Study's TOR, which the World Bank had organized into six key elements. Nexant organized the work into six Activities covering these six key elements, plus an initial Activity (Data Collection) and an Activity covering deliverables (Reporting and Presentations). Activity 1 ­ Data Collection Activity 2 ­ Description and Analysis of Current Power Generation Market Activity 3 ­ Electricity Supply and Demand Analysis Activity 4 ­ Pipeline Gas, LNG, CNG and Coal Activity 5 ­ Renewable Energy (Hydro, Geothermal, Solar and Wind) Activity 6 ­ Electricity Generation, Transmission and Interconnections Activity 7 ­ Identification and Assessment of Viable Regional/sub-regional Energy Solutions Activity 8 ­ Reporting and Presentations 3.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDY STEPS 3.2.1 Activity 1 ­ Data Collection Section 4 provides more detail on the approach to data collection. 3.2.2 Activity 2 ­ Description and Analysis of Current Power Generation Market The focus of Activity 2 is on the current power generation market, including assessing the upgrading of existing units and assessing regional fuel storage facilities for existing units. The major components of a power generation market are demand, supply, and fuels. Section 6 covers current demand, describes our approach to forecasting future demand, and provides the results. The data collection process provided the basic data on existing and planned generation contained in Section 5, which also contains a more detailed summary description of the power generation market. Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply, fuel pricing, and fuel storage issues. Section 8 describes our approach to assessing the upgrade of existing units. 3.2.3 Activity 3 ­ Electricity Supply and Demand Analysis There are two elements to this Activity: Review data on historical demand and existing demand forecasts and prepare regional/sub-regional power demand analysis. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 3-1 Review data on existing supply (generation) and plans for new generation and prepare regional/sub-regional power supply analysis As noted above, Section 6 covers current demand, describes our approach to forecasting future demand, and provides the results. As noted above, the data collection process provided the basic data on existing and planned generation contained in Section 5. Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply, fuel pricing, and fuel storage issues. Section 8 describes generation technologies and generation expansion options. The screening analysis described in Section 11 provides an initial evaluation of technologies and fuels that might be part of long-term supply (generation expansion) plans. The scenario analysis described in Section 12 provides our approach to establishing long-term supply plans for four scenarios. 3.2.4 Activity 4 ­ Pipeline Gas, LNG, CNG and Coal Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply and fuel pricing for the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP), LNG, CNG, and coal. 3.2.5 Activity 5 ­ Renewable Energy (Hydro, Geothermal, Solar and Wind) Activity 5 has four main components: Assessment of renewable energy potential Assessment of relevant renewable technologies and their and costs Review and assessment of existing/proposed sub-regional renewable energy projects Identification of regional/sub-regional renewable energy solutions to meet future power demand. Section 8 describes our approach and the results for each of the first three items. Section 12 describes our approach to scenario analysis, which addresses the fourth bullet. Sections 13 and 14 provide the results from the analysis. 3.2.6 Activity 6 ­ Electricity Generation, Transmission and Interconnections Activity 6 has three main components: Assessment of power generation applications and technologies Review and assessment of selected project analyses provided by regional utilities/organizations involving interconnections Review of submarine transmission cable technologies and costs and assessment of interconnections among islands Section 8 provides our approach to, and results for, the first bullet's assessment of fossil fuel as well as renewable technologies. All proposed projects involving interconnections included geothermal power generation and submarine cable interconnection. Section 9 describes our approach to, and results for, the second bullet's review and assessment of those projects, which also provides the review of submarine cable technologies of the third bullet. One Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 3-2 interconnection (Haiti ­ Dominican Republic) is neither a submarine cable nor proposed by a regional organization. Section 9 also provides our assessment of that interconnection. 3.2.7 Activity 7 ­ Identification and Assessment of Viable Regional/sub-regional Energy Solutions As per TOR, Activity 7 has three main components: Development of a regional/sub-regional energy supply plan using submarine cables Development of a regional/sub-regional energy supply plan emphasizing new fuels and renewable Provide more detailed technical advice on the most promising pipeline of the above- bulleted plans and provide project-specific advice on important issues Section 12 describes our approach to scenario analysis, which addresses the first two bullets bullet. Section 13 provides the results from the analysis. Section 14 describes our approach to, and the results for, the third bullet. 3.2.8 Activity 8 ­ Reporting and Presentations Three reports and a presentation comprise the Study's deliverables. All reports will be delivered in electronic format only. An electronic file containing the presentation will also be delivered. The Inception Report was the first report and was delivered on June 5, 2009. The Interim Report, originally titled the Draft Final Report, was the second report and was delivered on November 30, 2009. This Final Report is the third report. It differs from the Interim Report primarily in addressing the comments received from the World Bank and other reviewers. A dissemination visit to deliver a Presentation covering the Study and its results to relevant governments and regional bodies is planned following the delivery of the Final Report. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 3-3 Section 4 Data 4.1 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS Our work in each activity area was data-driven and relied on basic data. Data collection included the following main steps: The World Bank provided considerable information at the start of the Study Prepared and delivered data request for utilities, with a goal to acquire data on their generation and transmission systems, fuel, plans, etc. Visited each utility during the kick-off mission and later visits to collect and discuss data Followed up to fill holes in data Collected data from publicly available sources such as the Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Research Institute, utilities' web sites, the United States Department of Energy, the National Energy Research Laboratory, etc. Contacted vendors for price and performance information Used information from previous Nexant studies and related work The objective of the kick-off mission was to initiate the Study by visiting CARILEC headquarters in St. Lucia and utilities and other organizations in nine countries. The goals for the meetings were to have face-to-face discussions of the issues, and to collect whatever data was available at that time. Three Teams, each consisting of one representative from Nexant and one from the World Bank, conducted the Mission: Team A: Franz Gerner from the World Bank and Peter Hindley from Nexant visited St. Lucia, Martinique, and Dominica Team B: Michael Levitsky from the World Bank and Babul Patel from Nexant visited Antigua, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines Team C: Alan Townsend from the World Bank and Bruce Degan from Nexant visited Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Grenada Before and as a part of arranging the kick-off mission meetings, the World Bank distributed a Questionnaire and Data Entry Template to request the data needed to conduct the Study. Attachment A provides those two documents. The focus of the Study is on the nine Caribbean International Development Association (IDA) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) countries, but will also address other relevant countries if they are part of a regional energy solution. Of the nine countries visited during the kick-off mission, six are IDA/IBRD countries with a combined population of 600,000; the three that are not are Martinique (a department of France), Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados. The three IDA/IBRD countries visited later are Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, all in the Greater Antilles, with a combined population of about Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 4-1 22,000,000 that dwarfs the 600,000 combined population of the other six, all in the Lesser Antilles. We also visited the Cayman Islands during a later trip. The Teams met with the electric utilities and many other relevant organizations. Attachment D summarizes the meetings, organizations, and people met in each country. Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 4-2 Section 5 Existing and Planned Generation, Summary of Transmission 5.1 EXISTING AND PLANNED GENERATION PLANTS Table 5-2 lists existing generating units for which data was provided. Table 5-3 lists planned and other candidate units. Where data was missing, we filled in holes with representative values depending on the fuel, any de-ratings, age, and other factors. For the existing units, the column titled "# of Identical Units" means just that. For the planned and candidate units, a number greater than zero means the unit is "committed". Committed projects are those projects not yet operational that are sufficiently far along in planning or construction that they are assumed to be built. This means that they are not subject to displacement by other planned or optional resources. If the number zero appears in that column, it means the unit is not committed, but one or more such units can be added to the generation expansion plan if necessary. The abbreviations used in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 have the following meanings: Abbreviations for Plant Technologies MSD - medium speed diesel LSD - slow speed diesel Wind ST - steam turbine CC - combined cycle GT - simple cycle gas turbine HY ­ hydro Geo ­ geothermal PV - solar photovoltaics CFB - circulating fluidized bed CvCoal - conventional coal Cogen - cogeneration, must-take Abbreviations of Fuel Types D ­ Distillate H ­ HFO R - Renewable (Hydro, Solar, Wind) G ­ Geothermal C ­ Coal N - Natural Gas L ­ LNG DL - Distillate/Natural Gas HL - HFO/Natural Gas Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-1 Table 5-1 Fuels, Fuel Types, and Where the Fuel Prices Apply Name of Fuel Fuel Type Areas Where Prices Apply Distillate D All Study Countries HFO H All Study Countries LNG Dom Rep L Dominican Republic LNG Haiti L Haiti LNG Jam L Jamaica GP Barb N Barbados GP Mart N Martinique GP StL N St. Lucia GP Guad N Guadeloupe Coal 10&20MW C Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Vincent and Grenadines Coal 25MW C St. Lucia Coal 25&50MW C Barbados, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique Coal 100&200MW C Jamaica Coal 200&500MW C Dominican Republic Geo G Geothermal for all Study Countries Wind R Wind for all Study Countries Solar R PV and CSP for all Study Countries Hydro R Hydro for all Study Countries Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-2 Table 5-2 Existing Generating Units Plant Heat Rate Capacity Avail- Unit Unit Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Retire- able Over- Name- Current Net # of Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, ment Year night plate Net Capacity, Iden- Capac- Thermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renew- Year if (begin- Capital Tech- Capacity MW (May tical ity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must- any (end ning of Cost (2009 Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Units (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) of year) year) $/kW) Antigua and Barbuda - Existing APC (Pant) MSD 5.00 3.75 4 15.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 35 15% 10% APC Blk Pine LSD 6.50 6.00 2 12.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 40 13% 7% APC Blk Pine LSD 7.50 7.00 2 14.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 40 13% 7% APC Blk Pine LSD 17.00 0.00 1 0.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 30 12% 8% Baker MSD 5.10 4.00 1 4.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 35 15% 10% APC Jt Vent MSD 17.00 17.00 1 17.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 30 12% 8% Victor LSD 13.00 4.00 2 8.00 Distillate D 8,500 5.0 40 15% 10% WIOC MSD 5.20 0.00 2 0.00 Distillate D 15,000 20.0 50 20% 20% Aggreko Rental MSD 1.00 1.00 13 13.00 Distillate D 10,000 6.0 40 15% 10% Barbuda MSD 3.60 3.60 2 7.20 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 35 13% 9% 90.20 << Total Existing Generation, MW Barbados - Existing Spring Garden LSD 12.80 12.50 2 25.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 40 13% 7% 1982 Spring Garden LSD 13.40 13.20 1 13.20 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 40 13% 7% 1986 Spring Garden LSD 13.40 13.20 1 13.20 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 40 13% 7% 1990 Spring Garden LSD 30.50 30.50 2 61.00 Distillate D 7,895 4.0 40 13% 7% 2003 Spring Garden ST 20.00 20.00 2 40.00 HFO H 12,000 6.0 25 11% 11% 1976 Sewall GT 43.00 43.00 2 86.00 Distillate D 12,000 6.0 8 5% 5% 238.40 << Total Existing Generation, MW Dominica - Existing Hydro ­ three plants HY 7.60 5.00 1 5.00 Hydro R 10.0 70 10% 5% 50% < Assumed Thermal ­ two plants MSD 4.00 4.00 4 16.00 Distillate D 10,000 10.0 40 15% 15% 21.00 << Total Existing Generation, MW Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-3 Plant Heat Rate Capacity Avail- Unit Unit Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Retire- able Over- Name- Current Net # of Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, ment Year night plate Net Capacity, Iden- Capac- Thermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renew- Year if (begin- Capital Tech- Capacity MW (May tical ity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must- any (end ning of Cost (2009 Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Units (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) of year) year) $/kW) Dominican Republic - Existing AES Dominica Andres CC 319.00 290.00 1 290.00G Dom Rep L 8,139 3.0 30 6% 6% 2003 Itabo ST 128.00 128.00 1 128.00 00&500MW C 11,642 4.0 30 11% 6% 1984 Itabo ST 132.00 101.00 1 101.00 00&500MW C 11,642 8.0 35 13% 8% 1984 Los Mina GT 118.00 118.00 2 236.00G Dom Rep L 13,252 6.0 20 5% 5% 1996 Itabo GT 34.50 34.50 1 34.50 Distillate D 12,857 7.0 9 6% 6% 1998 Higuamo GT 34.50 0.00 0 0.00 Distillate D 12,857 20.0 65 20% 20% 1998 Haina Haina ST 54.00 50.00 2 100.00 HFO H 12,721 4.0 30 12% 7% Haina ST 84.90 72.00 1 72.00 HFO H 12,000 5.0 35 13% 8% San Pedro ST 33.00 33.00 1 33.00 HFO H 12,721 3.0 30 11% 6% Puerto Plata ST 27.60 27.60 1 27.60 HFO H 12,721 3.0 30 11% 6% Puerto Plata ST 39.00 39.00 1 39.00 HFO H 12,721 3.0 30 11% 6% Haina GT 100.00 100.00 1 100.00 Distillate D 11,803 6.0 8 5% 5% Barahona ST 53.60 45.60 1 45.60 00&500MW C 12,857 6.0 35 13% 8% Sultana DE LSD 17.00 11.33 9 102.00 HFO H 8,219 8.0 40 15% 12% 2001 CESPM CESPM. CC 100.00 100.00 3 300.00 Distillate D 7,826 3.0 30 6% 6% San Felipe CC 185.00 185.00 1 185.00 Distillate D 9,677 4.0 35 7% 7% GPLV 2.9 36 12% 6% Palamara LSD 107.00 107.00 1 107.00 HFO H 8,858 5.0 40 14% 8% La Vega LSD 87.50 87.50 1 87.50 HFO H 8,918 5.0 40 14% 8% IPPS CEPP LSD 18.70 16.50 1 16.50 HFO H 9,618 5.0 40 14% 8% CEPP LSD 58.10 50.00 1 50.00 HFO H 9,618 5.0 40 14% 8% Seaboard LSD 43.00 43.00 1 43.00 HFO H 9,254 5.0 40 14% 8% Seaboard LSD 73.30 73.30 1 73.30 HFO H 8,592 5.0 40 14% 8% Monte Rio LSD 100.00 100.00 1 100.00 HFO H 8,372 5.0 40 14% 8% Metaldom LSD 42.00 42.00 1 42.00 HFO H 8,996 5.0 40 14% 8% Laesa LSD 31.60 31.60 1 31.60 HFO H 12,000 5.0 40 14% 8% Maxon LSD 30.00 30.00 1 30.00 Distillate D 10,087 4.0 35 13% 7% Falconbridge ST 66.00 12.00 3 36.00 HFO H 12,483 5.0 35 13% 8% EGEHID (State-owned hydro company) Reservoir Hydro HY 387.10 387.10 1 387.10 Hydro R 5.0 40 7% 7% 37% Non Reser Hydro HY 85.20 85.20 1 85.20 Hydro R 5.0 40 7% 7% 37% 2,883 << Total Existing Generation, MW Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-4 Plant Heat Rate Capacity Avail- Unit Unit Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Retire- able Over- Name- Current Net # of Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, ment Year night plate Net Capacity, Iden- Capac- Thermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renew- Year if (begin- Capital Tech- Capacity MW (May tical ity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must- any (end ning of Cost (2009 Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Units (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) of year) year) $/kW) Grenada - Existing Queens Park LSD 5.50 5.50 3 16.50 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 26 16% 9% Queens Park LSD 8.00 8.00 2 16.00 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 26 16% 9% Queens Park LSD 8.00 8.00 2 16.00 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 26 16% 9% 48.50 << Total Existing Generation, MW Haiti - Existing Varreau PAP EDH MSD 17.00 8.50 4 34.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 40 15% 10% Carrefour PAP EDH MSD 8.00 4.00 6 24.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 40 15% 10% Peligre PAP EDH HY 18.00 9.00 3 27.00 Hydro R 30% Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs MSD 2.00 1.00 20 20.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 40 15% 12% ^^ Assumed 30% cap factor Carrefour PAP IPP MSD 2.00 1.00 10 10.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 40 15% 12% Thermal in Provinces MSD 4.00 2.00 18 36.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 40 15% 12% Hydro in Provinces HY 2.00 1.00 4 4.00 Hydro R 10.0 80 10% 10% 30% 155.00 << Total Existing Generation, MW ^^ Assumed 30% cap factor Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-5 Plant Heat Rate Capacity Avail- Unit Unit Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Retire- able Over- Name- Current Net # of Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, ment Year night plate Net Capacity, Iden- Capac- Thermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renew- Year if (begin- Capital Tech- Capacity MW (May tical ity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must- any (end ning of Cost (2009 Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Units (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) of year) year) $/kW) Jamaica - Existing JPS Owned Old Harbour ST 33.00 28.60 1 28.60 HFO H 13,433 3.0 30 11% 6% 2014 1968 Old Harbour ST 60.00 57.00 1 57.00 HFO H 13,433 3.0 30 11% 6% 2022 1970 Old Harbour ST 68.50 61.80 1 61.80 HFO H 13,433 3.0 30 11% 6% 2024 1972 Old Harbour ST 68.50 65.10 1 65.10 HFO H 13,433 3.0 30 11% 6% 1973 Hunts Bay ST 68.50 65.10 1 65.10 HFO H 13,433 3.0 30 11% 6% 2026 1976 Hunts Bay GT 22.50 21.40 1 21.40 Distillate D 14,754 6.0 9 5% 5% 1974 Hunts Bay GT 33.00 32.10 0 0.00 Distillate D 14,754 6.0 9 5% 5% 1993 Rockfort LSD 20.00 17.30 2 34.60 HFO H 9,626 5.0 40 14% 8% 2020 1985 Bogue GT 22.80 21.40 1 21.40 Distillate D 14,400 6.0 9 5% 5% 1974 Bogue GT 18.50 13.90 3 41.70 Distillate D 16,744 8.0 15 8% 8% 1990-92 Bogue GT 20.50 19.90 2 39.80 Distillate D 13,333 6.0 9 5% 5% 2001-2002 Bogue CC 111.00 111.00 1 111.00 Distillate D 8,845 6.0 16 5% 5% 2003 IPPS JEP Owned JEP Barge 1 MSD 9.30 9.20 8 73.60 HFO H 8,571 5.0 40 14% 8% 1996 JEP Barge 2 MSD 12.50 12.40 4 49.60 HFO H 8,571 5.0 40 14% 8% 2006 JPPC Owned LSD 30.00 30.00 2 60.00 HFO H 8,372 5.0 40 14% 8% 2015 1999 Jamalco Cogen 11.00 11.00 1 11.00 HFO H 9,499 15.0 25 12% 7% 15% Alumina Producers 150.00 0.00 5.0 40 14% 8% Sugar 23.50 0.00 Wigton Wind 20.00 7.00 1 7.00 Wind R 4.0 35 5% 9% 78% < Based on 47.7 GWH HY 23.00 20.40 1 20.40 Hydro R 4.0 40 6% 6% 769.10 << Total Existing Generation, MW Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy ­ Final Report 5-6 Plant Heat Rate Capacity Avail- Unit Unit Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Retire- able Over- Name- Current Net # of Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, ment Year night plate Net Capacity, Iden- Capac- Thermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renew- Year if (begin- Capital Tech- Capacity MW (May tical ity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must- any (end ning of Cost (2009 Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Units (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) of year) year) $/kW) Martinique - Existing 8000.0 2011- Bellefontaine MSD 20.00 20.00 10 200.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 30 12% 8% 2013 1984-96 Bellefontaine GT 23.00 23.00 1 23.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 8 5% 5% 1993 Pointe de Carrieres LSD 43.00 43.00 2 86.00 Distillate D 7,800 5.0 40 14% 8% 1997-98 Pointe de Carrieres GT 20.00 8.00 1 8.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 10 6% 6% 2010 1981 Pointe de Carrieres GT 20.00 20.00 2 40.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 8 5% 5% 1990 SARA 16 GWH/yr Cogen 4.50 4.50 1 4.50 Distillate D 8,300 15.0 25 12% 7% 41% 16 GWH 1997 MV/UIOM 30 GWH/yr MW 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 Muni O 14,400 8.0 40 11% 6% 86% 30 GWH 2002 SIDEC/Galion GT 40.00 40.00 1 40.00 Distillate D 11,100 6.0 8 5% 5% 2007 Rooftop solar PV 0.05 0.05 120 6.00 Solar R 4.5 50 2% 4% 16%