Publication Laka-library:
Comparative costs of California Central Station electricity generation: Draft: CEC-200-2009-017-SD (2009)
| Author | CEC, J.Klein |
 |
6-01-0-10-81.pdf |
| Date | August 2009 |
| Classification | 6.01.0.10/81 (COSTS) |
| Front |
From the publication:
Abstract The 2009 Comparative Cost of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies Report updates the levelized cost of generation estimates that were prepared for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). The levelized cost of resource represents a constant cost per unit of generation computed to compare one unit’s generation cost with other resources oversimilar periods. The California Energy Commission staff provides revised levelized costestimates, including the cost assumptions for 21 central station generation technologies: 6 gas-fired, 13 renewable, nuclear, and coal-integrated gasification combined cycle. All levelized costs are developed using the Energy Commission’s Cost of Generation Model. The levelized costs are useful for evaluating the financial feasibility of a generationtechnology and comparing the cost of one particular energy technology with another. The analysis presented in the report is an improvement over the 2007 report in five ways. First, the staff presents a range of levelized cost estimates (low, medium, and high) that can be expected for each of these technologies. The calculated range will allow users to consider the associated risks and uncertainties that may affect project development. Second, the staff examined the variables that may change in the future to develop a range of forward levelized cost estimates—a shortcoming identified in the 2007 IEPR. Third, the model nowcalculates levelized costs using a cash-flow accounting method for merchant projects, instead of the revenue requirement approach that was used for the 2007 IEPR. The revenu requirement accounting method can overstate the cost of alternative technologies by as much as 30 percent. Fourth, the staff estimates transmission transaction costs and the cost of transmission to the first point of interconnection. Fifth, the model has the option to carry- forward taxes to the following years in addition to the traditional option to take taxes in thecurrent year. This option is used herein for the high-cost case.