Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutContractor Report; Battery Energy Storage Systems Life Cycle Costs Case Studies 1998CONTRACTOR REPORT . SAND98-1905 Unlimited Release Battery Energy Storage Systems Life Cycle Costs Case Studies Shiva Swaminathan, Nicole F. Miller, and Rajat K. Sen SENTECH, Inc. 4733 Bethesda Avenue Suite 608 Bethesda, MD 20814 Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Printed August 1998 (fh) Sandia National Laboratories Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern- ment, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401 Available to the public from National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rd Springfield, VA 22161 NTIS price codes Printed copy: A04 Microfiche copy: A01 SAND98-1905 Unlimited Release Printed August 1998 Battery Energy Storage Systems Life Cycle Costs Case Studies* Shiva Swaminathan Nicole F. Miller Rajat K. Sen SENTECH, Inc. 4733 Bethesda Avenue Suite 608 Bethesda, MD 20814 Abstract This report presents a comparison of life cycle costs between battery energy storage systems and alternative mature technologies that could serve the same utility-scale applications. Two of the battery energy storage systems presented in this report are located on the supply side, providing spinning reserve and system stability benefits. These systems are compared with the alternative technologies of oil-fired combustion turbines and diesel generators. The other two battery energy storage systems are located on the demand side for use in power quality applications. These are compared with available uninterruptible power supply technologies. * The work described in this report was performed for Sandia National Laboratories under Contract No. AV-5396. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their significant input into this report. Discussions were held with the following persons in preparation of this document: Rafael Ruiz, BES Plant Manager, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. William Monriog, Generating Planning Division, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. George Hunt, GNB Technologies. Chris Loeffler, Applications Engineer, Best Power. Gene Abraham, Sales, Best Power. Phil Annery, Sales, Liebert Corporation. William Nerbun, AC Battery Corp. Robert Hall, Marketing, Holec Power Protection. . Mark Baldwin, Baldwin Technologies. 10. Pat Pietz, Architect Engineer. 11. Charles Ward, Power Quality Engineer, Enervision. 12. Bradford Roberts, Director of Sales, Omnion Power Engineering Corporation. CARN AKAWN BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CONTENTS CASE STUDIES Contents 1. Introduction .........ssssssscsssessseeseenseessesessesssssseeneesensee evcesesetsoneneesvenessoee 1.1 Cost Categories Adopted for Computation of LCC... 1.2 Methodology of Computation 1.3 Assumptions 2. The PREPA Project 2.1 Project Rationale. 2.2 Technology Options 2.3 Project Description .... 2.4 System Installation and Operation 2.5 LCC Analysis 2.6 Discussion.... 3. The MP&L Project. 3.1 Project Rationale. 3.2 Competing Technologies .. 3.3 Project Description 3.4 System Installation and Operation .. 3.5 LCC Analysis.. 3.6 Discussion 4. GNB Technologies Vernon Lead Smelting Facility 4.1 Project Rationale... eesseseesceeeseeeeeeeeeeseees 4.2 Competing Technologies ... 4.3 Project Description ........... 4.4 System Installation and Operation .. 4.5 LCC Analysis.. 4.6 Discussion 5. Oglethorpe’s Power Quality System .. 5.1 Project Rationale........... 5.2 Competing Technologies .. 5.3 Project Description ........... 5.4 System Installation and Operation .. 5.5 Discussion 6. Impact of Future Cost Reductions .........ssssesssesscsssssserssnsseneassecesersserneneseenene evssssensvensssssevsesessssssensnenrsrsersoesesesssere! 6-1 7. COnCIUSIONS ........sesceessseeeeseeee wtecseesees surveneesssesesonsevecesesnvesscacececssereserenesoosessssoneseneessossoesesosesussesecesese rssvesenensncsssessocces 7-1 8. Emdmotes........c.csscssssssssrsnerenssenssecnssserersecesonssesssnenraeees: wovessesececnvesccerecceasnsesesesenees wsesescsscsecssessssssssssasesecsasareeescesereseacee 8-1 Figures 2-1. Single Line Diagram of Sabana Llana BESS 2-2. Components of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS & Combustion Turbine (in $M) 3-1. Simplified One-Line Diagram of the MP&L System. ........:.:.ss:cessecsssesseseeneeneeseeneneens 3-2. Components of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M) 4-1. Components of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M). . 5-1. Line Diagram of PQ2000 Power Quality System. 5-2. Components of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems (in $M) vi BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES CONTENTS Tables 2-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS and Combustion Turbine 3-1. Comparison of Performance Data for MP&L 1996-1997 .......ssececseceeeceeteeee 3-2. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator . 4-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator. 5-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems . 6-1. Comparison of Current and Projected Costs for BESS Technologies and Competitive Options (in $M)........ 6-1 vit BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CONTENTS CASE STUDIES Acronyms AGC automatic generation control BESS battery energy storage system DVR dynamic voltage restorer EMC Electric Membership Cooperative ESD electronic selector device GTO gate-turn-off LCC life cycle cost MP&L Metlakatla Power and Light O&M operation and maintenance p.a. per annum PCS power conversion system PREPA Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority SMES superconducting magnetic energy storage SOC state of charge T&D transmission and distribution UPS uninterruptible power supply VRLA valve-regulated, lead-acid vill BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The life cycle costs (LCC) of four operating, full- scale battery energy storage systems (BESS), were determined and compared with the LCC of alternative mature technologies that could serve the same appli- cations. Two of the BESSs are located on the supply side, providing spinning reserve and system stability benefits. The remaining two BESSs are located on the customer side ensuring that high quality, reliable power is available to critical loads during unplanned events that could cause power quality problems. For the two supply-side applications, oil-fired com- bustion turbines and diesel generators are the alterna- tive technologies. In both cases, the LCC analysis shows that the BESSs, at current capital costs, had a competitive advantage over the alternatives even though the capital cost for battery energy storage was substantially higher. At Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the LCC of the BESS was $25.2 million (M) which was about $4M lower than the alternative, while at Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) the LCC of the BESS was $3.44M, ap- proximately $1M lower than the commercially avail- able alternative. There are special circumstances that enhance the value of battery energy storage for these two applications. These are: 1. Island utilities unable to economically intercon- nect with other utility grids. 2. Combustion turbines and diesel generators op- erating at. partial loads (thus inefficiently) to provide spinning-reserve and load-following ca- pabilities. 3. Fuel prices substantially higher than the national average. The two applications studied thus represent high value-added niche markets for BESSs. In customer-side applications, uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) are routinely used to protect specific equipment but are typically not sized to provide fa- cility-level protection. This has opened opportunities for consumer installation of utility-scale BESSs for power quality applications. For one of the customer- side applications studied, Oglethorpe, the conven- tional alternative was to connect two commercial 200 kVA UPS units in parallel to provide up to 5 minutes of protection. The alternative technology for the other customer-side application, Vernon, was a small, conventional flywheel-based UPS system with a backup diesel generator. In both cases, the LCC for the BESS and for the alternative were very close. At Vernon, the LCC of the BESS and -the alternative were both around $6.3M, while at Oglethorpe LCCs were around $1.65M for both systems. Thus, the BESSs were fully competitive with the commercially available alternatives for these types of applications. BESSs considered in this report use different types of lead-acid batteries, a mature technology. Significant cost reductions for lead-acid batteries are not ex- pected. However, the power conversion system (PCS) and integration of BESSs are candidates for optimization and cost reduction. In this analysis, a 15% capital cost reduction is assumed to be achiev- able for large, optimized, and mass-produced BESSs for installations such as PREPA, MP&L, and Vernon. This report assumes that BESSs for power quality applications of the type installed at Oglethorpe could be reduced in price by 20% as the system is opti- mized and produced in quantity. When these lower capital costs are introduced, the LCC of BESSs sys- tems for all four applications favor the BESS option over the competition. The assumption, of course, is that comparable cost reductions for the conventional options do not occur to the same extent over the same time horizon. In conclusion, this comparison of LCC for BESSs and the commercially available alternatives show that for two of those applications, the BESS is favored at to- day’s prices. The LCC of the BESSs and that of the alternative technologies are very close for the two remaining applications. As capital cost reductions are realized for BESSs through improved PCS technolo- gies, better systems integration, and volume produc- tion, the are expected to be economically advanta- geous for all four of the applications considered in this report. ES-1 BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are entering initial stages of acceptance in the mar- ketplace. Four BESSs are currently in operation, . serving a variety of needs. Two of the projects are on the electricity supply side installed by utilities to provide dynamic operating benefits. They are: Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA): The 20-MW/14-MWh BESS provides spinning re- serve and frequency control. The system is lo- cated near San Juan, Puerto Rico. Metlakatla Power and Light (MP&L): The 1- MW/1.4-MWh BESS serves repeated demand spikes and provides voltage, frequency, and sys- tem stability and control. The system is located in Metlakatla, Alaska, on the Annette Island Re- serve in southeast Alaska. The two other BESSs are installed on the customer side of the meter. These systems provide reliable high quality power to prevent customer financial losses due to power disturbances and unplanned outages of the electricity supply system. These projects are: GNB Technologies’ Vernon Lead Smelting Factory: The 5-MW peak/3.5-MWh BESS provides pro- tection for the sensitive emissions control loads ‘in the facility. The system provides power for up to one hour to allow for orderly shut-down of the plant during an unplanned power outage. The BESS can also be used for demand peak-shaving. The system is located in Vernon, California, about ten miles from downtown Los Angeles. Oglethorpe Power’s Lithograph Plant Customer: The 1-MW/10-second system has the capability to provide ride-through for up to 10 seconds during voltage sags and momentary outages. The sys- tem is capable of repeated discharges over a short period of time. The system is located in Homerville, Georgia. This report provides a short historical overview and the rationale used to justify each of the four projects. The report also analyzes the life cycle costs (LCC) of the BESSs for the four projects and compares them with the LCC of competing technologies that were considered as alternatives to BESSs to meet the same application needs. LCC methodology provides a basis by which prod- ucts with different capital and operation and mainte- nance (O&M) costs can be compared equitably. The computation of LCC considers both the initial capital costs and all subsequent costs incurred over the life of the product.' Despite the uncertainties inherent in projections of costs 20 to 30 years into the future, LCC provides a fair basis of comparison for two products capable of serving the same needs of the consumer. During this study, the owner-operators and designer- integrators of the four systems were contacted. Dis- cussions were held to ascertain operational experi- ence, costs incurred, and benefits from each energy storage system. The four projects have different lev- els of operational experience, and as a result, the data available from the different projects varied. The stor- age systems at MP&L and Oglethorpe became opera- tional in 1996/97, while the Vernon BESS has been in operation since early 1996 and the PREPA BESS since late 1994. The lack of availability of some of the operational data and projected costs were due to their proprietary nature. In order to compare the LCC of the four storage proj- ects with those of competing technologies, vendors of alternative technologies were contacted. The esti- mated costs of the competing technologies were ob- tained from vendor quotations and discussions with system operators. Technical guides, input from’ ex- perts, and operational experience from other energy storage systems were used to estimate cost parameters that were not available by other means. The vendors who supplied data were given an oppor- tunity to comment on the analysis and computations made to ensure that the information provided was used in the proper context. - 1.1 Cost Categories Adopted for Computation of LCC Life cycle costing is a method of calculating the total cost of ownership over the life span of an asset.” Ini- tial cost and all subsequent expected costs of signifi- cance have to be included in the calculations. In ad- dition, computation of the LCC includes disposal value and any other quantifiable benefits at the end of the equipment life. I-] INTRODUCTION Costs associated with acquiring, utilizing, and dispos- ing of an asset can be classified into several cost categories, such as: Capital or First Cost—Cost of getting a project started and equipment operational. These costs for the four projects are known with a high de- gree of certainty because they have been incurred and were tracked while the projects were imple- mented. This report breaks down the capital cost into its constituent components as given by the Opportunities Analysis report.* Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs—These costs are experienced continually over the useful life of the equipment and include O&M labor; fuel and power costs; O&M supplies, spares, and repair parts, costs of insurance and taxes; and as- sociated overhead costs. The burden these costs will impose over the life of the equipment are, to a large extent, estimates. For the four projects studied, we were able to ascertain the costs di- rectly attributable to the projects in the recent past and those projected for the next fiscal year. These costs were then extended to cover the life of the equipment. In most instances, they were assumed to be constant (in real dollars) over the life of the plant; however, under certain condi- tions they were escalated. The relevant assump- tions are explained for each of the four LCC es- timates. Fixed and Variable Cost—Fixed costs are generally made up of such cost items as depreciation, maintenance, taxes, lease rentals, interest on in- vested capital, and administrative expenses. Variable costs may include fuel usage, electricity to recharge batteries, watering, etc. Costs ascer- tained for this analysis included many items in the variable category. At times, segregating O&M costs between fixed and variable costs be- comes subjective. For example, the equipment maintenance and consumables were estimated to be ~$70K per annum (p.a). Since most of it was fixed and some variable, $50K p.a was allocated as fixed cost and the balance as variable cost (see Table 2.1 for another example). Incremental or Marginal Cost—The relevant cost for establishing the LCC for maintaining a certain level of service is often incremental. For exam- ple, even though a diesel generator may operate most efficiently at continuous rated output, it might also be operated at a lower, suboptimal level to maintain spinning reserve capability. The incremental cost associated with inefficient op- eration of the engine for this purpose is properly BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES allocated towards the cost of maintaining spin- ning reserve and should not be associated with energy generation. Direct and Indirect Cost—Only direct costs associ- ated with the O&M of the plant have been in- cluded in the analysis. Indirect costs associated with management, legal, payroll, and procure- ment services have not been considered. Sunk or Past Cost—Because only future conse- quences of investment alternatives can be af- fected by current decisions, costs incurred in the past have to be disregarded. However, there is an instance in the analysis where terminating the use of an existing diesel generator and investing in a storage system were justified on the basis of greater cost associated with the O&M of the die- sel engine. In that case, the capital cost incurred to purchase the diesel engine is relevant to com- paring the LCC of the two options. 1.2 Methodology of Computa- tion Initial capital costs are incurred in Year 0, just before the plant became operational. Total O&M costs were segregated into fixed and variable O&M costs. Some costs, such as battery replacement, which depend both on usage pattern as well as age, do not clearly fall into one of the two categories. When cost categories were not clear, the method of allocation is explained. However, the total O&M cost considered all relevant costs experienced continually over the useful life of the plant. With the exception of diesel fuel (inflated at 1%/year), inflation was considered to be zero and costs are thus in constant dollar terms. Costs were extrapolated for 20 years of operation since all plants were assumed to have a useful life of 20 years. End- of-life costs in decommissioning the equipment were not considered due to their uncertainty. Their inclu- sion would have a minimal effect on the LCC of the systems because of the significant discount factor at the 20-year point. After developing the relevant costs for each of the four systems during the 20-year life, the out-year costs were discounted using a 10% discount factor to compute LCC. 1-2 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 1.3 Assumptions 1. A discount rate of 10% was used. The dis- count rate was selected to represent a value between the cost of borrowing and the return on capital for a company installing such systems. A system life of 20 years and battery life of 10 years were assumed. Battery replacement costs and O&M costs were assumed to remain the same in real terms throughout the 20-year life. All costs are given in 1997 dollars. 1-3 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS INTRODUCTION CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 1-4 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES THE PREPA PROJECT 2. The PREPA Project PREPA installed a 20-MW/14-MWh BESS at the Sabana Llana transmission substation located near San Juan, Puerto Rico. Ground breaking for the proj- ect occurred in July 1993 and the system became op- erational in November 1994. PREPA is an investor- owned utility responsible for generation, transmis- sion, and distribution of electricity to the entire island of Puerto Rico. The self-contained PREPA grid serves approximately 3,500 square miles and a popu- lation of approximately 3.5 million. Generation is located in the southern part of the island, while de- mand is concentrated in the north, around the city of San Juan. 2.1 Project Rationale The Puerto Rican grid is an isolated island system. To guard against unplanned generator outages and sys- tem disturbances, PREPA has to maintain its own spinning reserve and load-following generation units. The system at present has a peak load of approxi- mately 2.7 GW. Responding to rapid demand growth in the 1960s, PREPA installed about 2,500 MW of generation, essentially doubling its generation capacity. Most of these units were 400-MW, oil-fired combustion tur- bines. To minimize unplanned outages, spinning re- serve on the order of 400 MW is maintained by op- erating some of the combustion turbines under partial load. During unplanned outages, frequency generally dropped to unacceptable levels and loads had to be shed to bring the system back to stable operation. The sluggish response of the combustion turbines during outages, the cost of operating these turbines to pro- vide the spinning reserve, and public outcry during the frequent load shedding led PREPA to search for alternative ways of providing instantaneous spinning Teserve capability. 2.2 Technology Options PREPA required instantaneous reserves at power ratings of 10-100 MW for durations of approximately 15 minutes in the form of spinning reserve. This time buffer was adequate to have other generators take up the lost load. BESSs are well suited to meet these requirements. An alternative technology that could be used to pro- vide the same service is the oil-fired combustion tur- bine. However, in order for the combustion turbine to supply power instantaneously, the turbines must be kept operating suboptimally at 60% of full-load ca- pacity for approximately 12 hours each day. A 36% plant factor (or capacity factor) and the inefficient mode of operation imposes substantial cost ineffi- ciencies. An oil-fired combustion turbine exhibits a heat rate of 10,200 Btu/kWh) at full load but requires 13,300 Btu/kWh at 60% load. At a fuel cost of $5.67/MBtu, these inefficiencies translate into a sub- stantial cost penalty. Thus, in comparing the two technology options, one must assess the higher initial investment of a BESS against the lower initial cost and inefficient operation of the oil-fired turbines. A LCC comparison of the two technology options does exactly that. 2.3 Project Description A BESS for the provision of spinning reserve was authorized by the PREPA governing board in 1990, and the design work began in 1991 for a 20- MW/14.1-MWh system.° The facility construction was completed in October 1993. After a year of ex- tensive testing and debugging, the system commenced commercial operation in November 1994. Figure 2.1 illustrates the single line diagram of Sabana Llana BESS. The battery consists of 6,000 cells arranged in six strings containing 1,000 cells each. Three such strings were connected in parallel to a 2,000-VDC bus and then connected via a 10-MW PCS to a 13.8-kVAC bus. The 13.8-KVAC bus has two such systems con- nected to it, and the bus is then connected via a trans- former to the 115-kV substation. C&D Charter Power Systems supplied the 6,000 bat- tery cells, racks, watering system, electrolyte agitation system, and other battery-related equipment. General Electric supplied the PCS. The software for the con- trol algorithm was implemented by Max Control Systems, Inc. PREPA, with the help of United Engi- neers and Contractors, was the system integrator and managed the project. 2-1 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES THE PREPA PROJECT 40 MVA Transformer PCS-1A 10 MVA 1000 CELLS 4000 CELLS 1000 CELLS 2000 V DC 115 kV AC 13.8 kV AC 2000 V DC 1000 CELLS 41000 CELLS 4000 CELLS Figure 2-1. Single Line Diagram of Sabana Llana BESS. A two-story, reinforced concrete building was con- structed to house the equipment. The building has an external dimension of 172 feet x 95 feet, with the six battery strings occupying a total floor space of 24,700 square feet. The seismic activity in Puerto Rico and the weight of batteries required a reinforced concrete structure. A 100,000-gallon water tank is located just outside the building to be used in cases of accidents. The PCS, DC switchgear, and control] room occupy close to 4,000 square feet of floor space, which is air- conditioned. A carbon dioxide storage tank is avail- able to be used in this portion of the building in case of fire. 2.4 System Installation and Op- eration The BESS has been in operation since November 1994. As of April 1997, the plant has operated 38 times providing instantaneous reserve. The system continuously provides frequency regulation and volt- age stability. On average, close to 1 MWh of energy circulates through the plant every day when operating in the frequency regulation/voltage control mode. The batteries are recharged to 100% state of charge (SOC) every three days. The recharging begins at midnight and follows a designated recharge algo- rithm. The recharging time varies depending on the SOC when the recharging begins. In addition, a con- stant trickle charge is applied when the SOC is be- tween 70% and 90%, in order to try to maintain the SOC at 90%. Whenever, the SOC falls below 70%, a recharging cycle begins. All of these processes are automated. In addition, the electrolyte agitation system operates for 15 minutes every six hours, and watering of the 6,000 cells is done every six months. Cell voltages and temperatures are monitored constantly with built- in alarms. When cell voltages and/or temperatures deviate beyond acceptable limits, an alarm signal appears in the control panel. Voltages are monitored in groups of four cells. If any given four-cell group exhibits a voltage variation of greater than 0.2 V (nominal group voltage equals 4 x 2 volts, or 8 volts) from the average of the other 8-V groups of cells in the 2000-V string, an alarm is set off and that particu- lar four-cell group is investigated. The plant is staffed eight hours a day/five days a week by a plant manager, an electrician, and unskilled general help. The plant manager is constantly on call, if required. 2-2 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES THE PREPA PROJECT 2.5 LCC Analysis The LCC analysis of the BESS and the combustion turbine option for the PREPA application is shown in the appendix in Tables A2-1 and A2-2. The PREPA Plant Manager and the staff of the Generating Plan- ning Division provided all the cost information. The BESS was designed to reduce the number of oil-fired turbines operating under suboptimal conditions. The BESS was not designed to supply all the spinning- reserve generation capacity, rather the BESS with its ability to supply 20 MW of power for 15 minutes, provides PREPA the opportunity to bring its gas tur- bines on-line. This analysis assumes that spinning reserve duty by the PREPA BESS equates to a 30% capacity credit for the purpose of calculating the LCC of the alternative (6 MW of the 20-MW-rated BESS). PREPA planners did not consider capacity credit for BESS in their initial analysis but now agree with the 30% estimate. To assess an alternative technology to the BESS, this analysis evaluates a peaking, oil-fired combustion turbine. The plant data for the 83-MW, No. 2 oil-fired Asea Brown Boveri turbines, three of which began operation by PREPA in July 1997, are used for this comparison. The total capital cost of this 240-MW project was $160M.’ This is equivalent to $666/kW. The three turbines are being operated at 60% of full load for ~12 hours/day, with a projected annual ca- pacity factor of ~36%. This mode of operation im- poses a substantial penalty in terms of inefficient heat rates. The plant exhibits a heat rate of 10,200 BtwkWh at full load and 13,300 Btw/kWh at 60% load. At a fuel cost of $5.67/MBtu, this inefficiency translates into a substantial cost penalty. Hence, the LCC of this alternative to the BESS is the avoided cost of operating oil turbines inefficiently and the BESS’s ability to displace 6 MW of oil turbine ca- pacity. A detailed LCC comparison of the two options (Table A2-1 and A2-2) is located in the appendix. This in- formation is summarized below in Table 2-1. The notes given below Tables A2-1 and A2-2 in the ap- pendix explain the basis on which the numbers were derived and the costs included. All costs incurred over the 20-year life of the two systems have been discounted to Year 0 (1997$). Figure 2-2 presents the data in Table 2-1 graphically to highlight the capital intensive nature of battery energy storage compared to the combustion turbine. Investing up-front capital to achieve O&M savings over time clearly requires detailed technical and eco- nomic analysis before such investment decisions are made. 2.6 Discussion PREPA is an island utility that must maintain its own spinning reserve. Unscheduled outages of baseload generating units result in a very rapid drop in fre- quency, which results in load shedding. Reserve units must come on-line almost immediately in order to avoid shedding load. Maintaining oil-fired gas tur- bines as reserve units that are capable of supplying power instantaneously is very expensive since the fuel cost of $5.76/MBtu for oil in Puerto Rico is high. The capital cost of the BESS is much higher than that of equivalent combustion turbines. However, the BESS has relatively low O&M costs. In contrast, the Table 2-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS and Combustion Turbine Cost Category BESS Combustion Turbine CAPITAL COST ($k) Total initial cost 21,400 3,960 O&M Cost ($K) Discounted fixed cost 2,445 84 Discounted variable cost 255 25,470 Discounted battery replacement cost 1,050 - Total-Life Cycle Cost $25,200 $29,500 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM 30 25~ 20 15°} 107 Total initial cost Discounted . fixed cost Discounted variable cost Combustion Discounted battery Life cycle cost replacement cost Figure 2-2. Components of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS & Combustion Turbine (in $M). fuel costs for the combustion turbine are high, and as Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2 show, more than offset the — high capital cost of the BESS plant. Clearly, lower fuel costs will make the combustion turbine option look more competitive with the BESS. The break- even point is when the fuel price is between $4.50/MBtu and $5.00/MBtu. The average fuel price in the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. was approximately $3.16/MBt in 1996.5 which is lower than the break-even price of $4.50/MBw to $5.00/MBtu. This underscores the fact that the BESS at PREPA addresses the needs of a market with higher-than-average fuel prices. The batteries for the PREPA BESS carry a 10-year warranty, and the LCC analysis was therefore done assuming battery replacement every 10 years. The BESS will be less favorable from an LCC stand-point if batteries have to be replaced earlier and PREPA has to bear the cost of such replacement. This analy- sis finds that battery life must drop to 4.5 years in order for the LCC of battery energy storage to be- come equivalent to that of the combustion turbines. The discount rate also plays a significant role in de- termining the LCC of the two systems. The results presented in Table 2-1 are at a 10% discount rate. At a 14% discount rate, the LCC of the BESS and com- bustion turbines drop to $24.3 million and $23.7 mil- lion, respectively, making the two options roughly competitive in this case. As expected in LCC analy- sis, higher discount rates have greater impact on sys- tems with heavy front-end costs (the BESS), and lower discount rates have greater impact on systems with substantial out-year costs (the turbine). A dis- count rate of 10% was chosen as the average between the cost of borrowing and the return on capital ex- pected by industrial customers in today’s economy. The BESS at PREPA has now been in operation for a little more than three years. To date, the O&M cost with the BESS has been on track with original PREPA projections. Major O&M deviations upward or downward could have negative or positive effects, tespectively, on the BESS LCC. BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES THE MP&L PROJECT 3. The MP&L Project Metlakatla is an island on the southern tip of the Al- exander Archipelago in Southeast Alaska, adjoining the northwest corner of British Columbia. The Met- lakatla Indian community has a population of ap- proximately 1,500 and its electricity needs are served by a compact 12.5-kV network of hydroelectric and diesel generation. MP&L, the local utility, serves the Indian community, several relatively small commer- cial loads, and a large sawmill. The peak load of the system is about 3.5 MW, with approximately one- third of the total being associated with the sawmill. The system has an installed hydrogeneration capacity of 4.9 MVA and a large 5-MVA/3.3-MW diesel gen- erator. 3.1 Project Rationale The biggest load in the MP&L system is the sawmill. The chipper in the sawmill has a spiking load, with load swings of 600 kW and up to 900 kW at times. This caused substantial fluctuations in system voltage and frequency in the 3.5-MW grid system. Though the hydroelectric units have adequate capacity to sat- isfy the average active and reactive power needs, as well as the energy requirements of the system, they lack the speed of response required to follow the load fluctuations. The utility purchased the 3.3-MW diesel generator in 1987 in order to meet the demand of the chipper, which comes on-line for 10 seconds every three min- utes, 14 hours a day. The diesel was operated at 80% load, with the remainder of its capacity (700 kW) held in reserve to respond to load swings and short- term fluctuations in baseload. The generator had to be oversized and operated 14 hours a day in order to satisfy the response rate requirement, though the hy- droelectric units had sufficient energy generation ca- pability.’ The fuel and maintenance cost of operating the diesel unit to provide adequate capacity to meet the load swings was proving to be expensive, especially when sufficient energy and capacity was available from MP&L’s hydroelectric units.’? In 1992, the utility started exploring other technology options capable of responding to the large load swings. 3.2 Competing Technologies The technologies required to perform the function of responding to the spiking load of the chipper had to have a quick response time, within 1/20th of a sec- ond, and had to be able to provide sufficient amount of energy at high power levels. Battery energy stor- age, superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), flywheels, and capacitors, coupled with high-response PCS are all theoretically able to pro- vide the 1-MW 10-second (10-MJ) energy bursts required every three minutes. However, the ability to discharge the necessary amounts of energy every three minutes for 14 hours a day requires substantial amount of energy storage, which only battery energy storage has proven to provide." 3.3 Project Description The initial inquiry to explore the suitability of a stor- age system was made by MP&L with the Energ: Storage Systems Program at Sandia National Labora- tories in 1992. After considering different manufac- turers, the utility approached GNB Industries and General Electric to conduct a techno-economic fea- sibility study that compared battery energy storage to other options using only the existing hydroelectric and diesel units. The study suggested that a 1- MW/1.4-MWh battery energy storage could provide the spinning reserve, frequency control, and power quality improvement that MP&L needed.” The proj- ect was estimated to cost $1.6M with a benefit: cost ratio of ~ 1.5:1. After the competition of the final engineering cost estimates and environmental assessment, the turn-key project contract was signed in December 1995. The site construction began in May 1996, and check- out/energization was completed in November 1996. The commissioning tests started in December of 1996, and the plant has been in operation since Feb- tuary 1997. The system consists of a PCS, an automatic genera- tion control (AGC) system, batteries, racking and cables, and a butler-building-style shelter that houses all the equipment. The PCS, based on gate-turn-off (GTO) thyristors, allows bi-directional power flow between the AC system and the battery in less than a quarter cycle. The storage batteries consist of a string THE MP&L PROJECT of 378 GNB Absolyte IIP, series-connected, valve- regulated, lead-acid (VRLA) cells. The BESS is ca- pable of supporting a continuous load of 800 kVA and handles pulse loads up to 1200 KVA. A 900-kVA filter bank removes the harmonics and compensates the voltage of the electrical signal. The AGC ensures optimum integration of BESS response and hydroe- lectric operation. The steel butler building housing the equipment is 40 feet x 70 feet and sits on a con- crete pad at the 12.47-kV substation for MP&L’s main diesel generator. Figure 3-1 illustrates the simplified one-line diagram of the MP&L system. 3.4 System installation and Op- eration Since operation began in February 1997, improved efficiency in both the diesel and hydroelectric units has been achieved. A 60% increase in fuel-use effi- ciency has been noted. Within a month after opera- tion, the BESS operated for 45 minutes when a 1- MW load was rejected and tripped one of the hydroe- lectric units. The only time the diesel operated in the month of February 1997 was to recharge the battery. The diesel unit will still be required to operate when the hydroelectric units undergo maintenance; how- CHESTER 1.111 MVA HYDRO 99% PF 4.16 KV DIESEL 4.16 kV: BESS LOAD BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES ever, the engine- efficiency is high in this mode of operation. MP&L saved $39,100 in diesel fuel costs in March 1997. Since the battery is a source of energy when the load jumps higher than average and acts as a sink for en- ergy in the subsequent period, the net output for the hydroelectric plant is nearly constant, with the batter- ies requiring very little additional charging from the diesel. The BESS has demonstrated automatic, unat- tended operation, including charge, discharge, standby, ready, synchronization, disconnect, and black-start capability. 3.5 LCC Analysis With the installation of the BESS, the 3.3-MW diesel unit has been relegated to a standby mode of opera- tion. The diesel unit will not have to be operated when all the hydroelectric units are available with adequate water reserves to provide the energy re- quirements of the system load. Previously, the ex- pensive diesel had to operate, despite the availability of the hydrogeneration capacity, in order to maintain system stability. The BESS now provides adequate system stability. PURPLE LAKE HYDRO 5 MVA. 96% PF Figure 3-1. Simplified One-Line Diagram of the MP&L System. BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES With the operation of the BESS, an annual fuel sav- ings of $350,000 is projected. The amount of fuel consumed in 1996, prior to the installation of the BESS, compared to the amount of fuel consumed in 1997 when the BESS was in operation is shown in Table 3-1. The table also shows the percent contribu- tion of the diesel and the hydroelectric units in 1997. The contribution from diesel generation dropped from 24.4% in 1996 to 10.9% clearly demonstrating the value of the BESS."? As expected the contribution of hydroelectric generation increased from approxi- mately 75% to 90%. Inadequate water reserves, combined with hydroelectric systems problems, led to a lower usage of hydroelectric generation than planned. Diesel generation had to be increased to account for the shortfall. Thus, the 10.9% contribu- tion from diesel in 1997 represents a higher use of diesel than planned with the BESS in place. The diesel overhauls, which have to be undertaken after every 20,000 and 40,000 hours of operation, at a cost of $230K and $370K, respectively, are signifi- cantly delayed by the operation of the BESS. The costs incurred during the 20-year life of the BESS, and the costs of supplying the same load-following capability with diesel generation are given in the ap- pendix in Table A3-1 and Table A3-2, respectively. The notes given below each of the appendix tables explain the basis on which the numbers were derived and the costs included. A LCC comparison summary is given in Table 3-2, which summarizes the data from Table A3-1 and Ta- ble A3-2. All costs incurred over the 20-year life of the two systems have been discounted to Year 0 (19978). Figure 3-2 graphically depicts the various discounted cost components of the two alternatives. The cost THE MP&L PROJECT distribution is very similar to that of the PREPA case (Figure 2-2). The high initial capital cost of the BESS is compensated for by the extremely high fuel costs associated with the diesel generation system. 3.6 Discussion A spiking load of ~600 kW is a considerable load swing for a 3.5-MW isolated electricity grid. MP&L must meet such power demands repeated to serve the sawmill. The hydrogeneration and water storage fa- cilities provide adequate capacity to serve the island’s year-round energy demand, but the hydroelectric plant’s power capability and response time is not suf- ficient to meet the load spikes. MP&L had two options—it could either install addi- tional generation or interconnect with adjoining utili- ties. Interconnection was not practical since exten- sive over-water transmission would be required. Thus, in 1987, MP&L installed a diesel generating system. The diesel generator was used to provide load-following capability when the hydroelectric gen- eration was in operation and to provide full back-up power for the island during the maintenance periods of the hydroelectric system. Partial loading of the diesel generator was required when serving the load-following function. Operating a diesel generator at partial load is very inefficient. Furthermore, the delivered cost of diesel fuel to an isolated island in Alaska is as high as $5.70/Mbtu.* As Table 3-2 shows, the high initial capital cost of the BESS is more than offset by the high cost of diesel fuel combined with the inefficiency of the diesel gen- erator operating at partial load. The break-even point in this case comes when annual diesel fuel costs drop to $250K. Table 3-1. Comparison of Performance Data for MP&L 1996-1997" Performance Measure Diesel fuel consumption (gallons) Diesel % of net generation Hydroelectric % of net generation 1996 without 1997 with BESS BESS 476,188 143,957 24.4 10.9 75 90 3-3 THE MP&L PROJECT BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS & up AS . Ving, Meo, eng, Be hi fa, ba, Ne, O fe ey ny OK, “ng A CASE STUDIES Diesel Generator for Spinning Reserve BESS with Diesel for Generation Rescue Figure 3-2. Components of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M). Table 3-2. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator Cost Category BESS with Diesel Diesel Genera- Generator tor Alone CAPITAL COST ($k) Total initial cost 1,893 - Sunk cost 7 0 O&M Cost ($K) Discounted fixed cost 849 907 Discounted variable cost 425 425 Discounted fuel cost savings - 2,980 Discounted battery replacement cost 274 00 TotalLife Cycle Cost $ 3,440 $4,300 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES THE MP&L PROJECT A significant O&M cost associated with the diesel generator is regularly scheduled overhauls. As Table 3-2 shows, it amounts to $230K or $370K every three years. If the BESS eliminated the need for the diesel, this cost factor would also be eliminated. However, in reality, the diesel generator is still in service in a stand-by mode. When the hydroelectric units are not all available, the diesel generator must operate to provide the shortfall. The presence of the BESS, however, allows the diesel to be operated at full load instead of a partial load, and it is also operated for shorter periods. Thus, in the LCC analysis of the BESS, one cannot completely eliminate the diesel overhaul cost. However, the new combined system has not operated long enough to know how often such overhauls must be made to the diesel. If we make the conservative assumption that the overhaul cost will not change but the time between overhauls will be doubled, the LCC of the BESS/standby diesel and diesel-only options are $3.97M and $ 4.31M, respec- tively. In this case, the LCC of the BESS is still lower than the diesel option, although the BESS ad- vantage is somewhat reduced. Since its installation, the BESS has demonstrated benefits that were not realized during the project planning phase. Noise reduction has resulted from the infrequent use of the diesel generator, a benefit that is significant and greatly appreciated by the is- land residents. Moreover, the presence of the BESS has contributed to system stability and better man- agement of the hydroelectric resources. 3-5 THE MP&L PROJECT BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 3-6 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD SMELTING FACILITY 4. GNB Technologies Vernon Lead Smelting Facility A lead smelting and recycling center operated by GNB Technologies is located in Vernon, California, 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. The facility processes over 10M used-car batteries annu- ally, reclaiming approximately 100,000 tons of lead. The plant power is fed from a 4.16-kV feeder from the local municipal utility and has a typical load of approximately 3.5 MVA. 4.1 Project Rationale The BESS was installed at the smelting center to provide emergency power for critical loads, primarily those dealing with environmental controls. The BESS can provide protection for most of the factory’s 3.5- MW load for up to one hour, which provides suffi- cient time for orderly shutdown of the plant if the - power outage persists. Prior unplanned power out- ages caused unintended lead emissions which, in addition to health hazards, resulted in air quality vio- lations and fines. In addition, the system provides peak shaving of to 500 kW when the facility demand exceeds a preset threshold. Limiting the maximum power drawn from the grid will reduce the factory’s annual electricity demand charges by approximately $50,000. The BESS, while maintaining high levels of power quality and reliability, also provides power factor correction by supplying reactive power. 4.2 Competing Technologies GNB is a manufacturer of lead-acid batteries and has a strong interest in participating in the emerging mar- ket for BESS for electric utility applications. The Vernon plant provides GNB with an excellent oppor- tunity to showcase the performance of their own BESS. Consequently, GNB did not consider com- petitive technology options in great detail as they selected the BESS. A rotary, on-line power protection system coupled to a diese] generator was considered to be the competing technology in this assessment. This system continu- ously conditions utility power through a motor- generator pair. The motor-generator pair has enough inertia built into the system conventional (flywheel) to carry the load for 3-5 seconds during a power out- rage, which provides sufficient time for the stand-by diesel unit to come on line and supply the load. Due to the on-line protection capability of this motor- generator power protection system and the need to maintain the water jacket temperature of the diesel, the parasitic electricity consumption is about 7% of the system’s 1.6-MVA rating. Two such systems in parallel will be required to displace the BESS at the smelting factory. 4.3 Project Description The lead smelting facility at Vernon is required to adhere to the strict emission standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The large fans used to recover the lead dust generated by the factory are susceptible to outages and may result in the factory releasing lead dust into the atmosphere. In order to avoid further risk of lead emissions, GNB decided to install a UPS based on its own battery, with the PCS supplied by General Electric. The proj- ect was announced in November 1994, and construc- tion began in January 1995. The construction and installation phase were completed in August 1995, and commissioning tests were completed in Novem- ber 1995. The BESS utilizes GNB ABSOLYTE ITIP VRLA batteries and contains 2,268 cells (756 modules/3 cell per module) capable of supplying 3.5 MWh at the one-hour rating. The GTO-based General Electric BC2000 12-pulse PCS consists of three, 1.25-MVA units. 4.4 System Installation and Operation The BESS has been in operation since early 1996. The system is designed to operate for 10 seconds at a maximum plant demand of 5 MVA immediately after takeover and has a continuous rating of 3.0 MVA. Upon sensing a loss of utility voltage: e The incoming circuit breaker will open and the BESS will supply the entire load, GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD SMELTING FACILITY e The control system will shed all but the critical loads, and e The BESS will carry the critical loads at 3.0 MVA for one hour. In addition to the power quality protection function, the system has performed in a peak shaving mode for six hours daily, periodically since April 1996 to pro- vide power cost savings. However, its main function still remains providing backup power. 4.5 LCC Analysis The Vernon BESS is an off-line system with a start- up time of less than 1 second. The installed cost of the BESS was about $4.2M, which protects all the factory loads tied to the 4,160-V substation bus. Two containerized rotary power quality systems, rated at 1.6 MVA each, cost approximately $2.5M. Given the output voltage of 480 V, the necessary step-up transformer to 4,160 V adds another $2M to the equipment cost. However, this $4.5M power quality system can provide continuous power condi- tioning and backup generation, while the interactive battery-based UPS can provide protection for only an hour. The rotary power quality system alternative has a parasitic load of about 7% of its rated output. The cost of this parasitic load, which is on the ofder of 200 kVA for the 3.2-MVA system, is about $100,000 per annum. The detailed LCC analysis of two systems are given in the appendix in Tables A4-1 and A4-2. Table 4-1 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES compares the two systems on the basis of discounted costs. The notes given below the appendix tables ex- plain the basis on which the numbers were derived and the costs included. Figure 4-2 graphically represents the various compo- nents of the two technology options. The capital cost for the two technologies are comparable and the LCC for the two options are close enough that one could not be selected over the other, based on cost alone. 4.6 Discussion The Vernon BESS protects environmentally sensitive critical loads in an urban area. The BESS and the commercially available alternative appear comparable in performance and cost. The diesel genera- tor/flywheel storage system can carry the factory load beyond the one-hour capacity of the BESS, although there is no obvious need for such longer duration support for the critical loads of the plant. The initial capital cost for the diesel genera- tor/flywheel is slightly higher while the O&M cost for the BESS is slightly higher. As a result, the LCC of both systems are essentially equivalent. Battery re- placement for this application is expected to be every eight years. If we assume a battery life of 10 years, the LCC cost for the BESS drops to $6M. Although it is now slightly smaller than the diesel/flywheel storage system, the difference is still not significant. Table 4-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator Cost Category BESS Combustion Turbine CAPITAL COST ($K) Total initial cost 4,245 4,500 O&M Cost ($K) Discounted fixed cost 852 1,703 Discounted variable cost 426 - Discounted fuel cost - - Discounted battery replacement cost 821 - Total-Life Cycle Cost $6,340 $6,200 4-2 GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD SMELTING FACILITY BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES 7.00" Up Standby Generator Total initial Discounted . Discounted cost scot ixet - variable cost Discounted Di fuel cost iscounted un le cost savings battery ife cycle co: replacement cost ts of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M). Figure 4-1. Componen' GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD SMELTING FACILITY BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 4-4 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM 5. Oglethorpe’s Power Quality System A 1-MW/10-second battery-based power quality sys- tem is located at a lithograph plant in Homerville, Georgia. The plant is served by the Slash Pine Elec- tric Membership Cooperative (EMC). Slash Pine EMC, headquartered in Homerville, has approxi- mately 4,500 consumers/members, with the litho- graph plant being the largest among them. Oglethorpe Power Corporation was formed by 39 EMCs, including Slash Pine, in Georgia in 1974 to provide generation and transmission services, giving the local EMCs a measure of control over the source of electricity delivered to their customers through their own distribution system. Oglethorpe Power also provides services such as power quality assessments and solutions to their member EMCs. The 39 EMCs combined serve 72% of Georgia’s territory and ac- count for 23% of Georgia’s peak load. 5.1 Project Rationale Oglethorpe Power initiated examination of large power quality systems (in the 1-2 MW range) at the customer end when voltage sags were experienced by many of its EMC members and their customers. The typical sags were a maximum of 70 V and lasted 2 seconds. There were multiple causes for such disturbances. Southern Georgia is a region with high incidences of lightning and occasional hurricanes, which can cause surges and short circuits in the lines. Line damage from trees and animals also contributes momentary supply disruptions. While momentary disturbances are not critical for most consumers, certain manufac- turing facilities and commercial establishments could suffer serious financial losses. The necessary customer-end protection against such occurrence was envisaged to have the following char- acteristics: e Atleast 1 MW in capacity, e Ride through of at least 5 seconds, e Capability of many discharges over a short pe- riod of time, Fast transfer time, Compact footprint, Outdoor installation, and Economical and long life. The system ultimately selected was AC Battery Cor- poration’s PQ2000. The 2-MW system provides up to 10 seconds’ worth of load protection. The system was designed for outdoor installation and has built-in heating and cooling systems. The system is scaleable in 250 kVA units up to the 2-MVA size. This system was selected because of the high power rating, the small parasitic load, and the capability of being con- figured to meet the required 2-MW size. 5.2 Competing Technologies In its search for systems to meet the desired character- istics, Oglethorpe Power investigated various tech- nologies including: ° Statcom, e Dynamic Voltage Restorer (DVR), e SMES, ¢ Active Power Line Conditioner, e Statordyne, and e Standard UPS. A questionnaire covering a wide range of issues was sent to each manufacturer and the answers were ana- lyzed. Questions dealt with: Projected commercial cost, Research and development needs, Installation needs, Footprint and system sizing, Input and output voltage, Switching time, and Fault current limitations. The evaluation of the different products against the needs of customers was carried out by Oglethorpe, but the detailed analysis is not in the public domain. However, it is known that Westinghouse’s Statcom and DVR provide protection for very short durations, in the range of a few cycles, and would not be suffi- cient for the specified requirements. Though Super- conductivity, Inc., was at that time in the process of developing larger SMES magnets for longer duration protection, the magnets then available could provide protection only for 2~3 seconds for a 2-MW load. The UPSs, which in most instances are battery- powered, are used in a wide range of industrial appli- 5-1 OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM cations. They come in sizes ranging from the smaller 1-2 kW systems up to 100-200 kW and provide protection for durations of minutes to hours. How- ever, of the UPS system manufacturers, (which in- cluded Best Power; Exide Electronics; GNB Tech- nologies, Inc.; Liebert Corporation; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Intermagnetics General Corpo- ration; Superconductivity, Inc.; MGE UPS Systems; and Statordyne, Limited Liability Corporation) none of these companies had systems available in the MW range. Some of the UPS manufacturers were willing to supply MW-range systems by connecting their smaller units. One manufacturer said that nine 220- kVA units could be connected in parallel to achieve the 2-MW rating. This multiple-parallel system is considered to be the alternate to the PQ2000 for this application. The product line offered by this manufacturer is able to provide protection for up to 5 minutes, longer than the 10 seconds offered by the PQ2000. Detailed equipment capital and operating cost data were ob- tained from this manufacturer and they were com- pared to that of the projected LCC of the system in place at the lithograph plant. Because the batteries in this competing system were oversized for the specifi- cations, adjustments were made to take this into con- sideration. Detailed comparisons of the LCC of these two systems are analyzed in Section 5.5. BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES 5.3 Project Description The equipment for this project was supplied by AC Battery Corporation (Omnion Power Engineering) of East Troy, Wisconsin. PQ2000 is the trademark name of the company’s 2-MW system providing protection to connected loads for up to 10 seconds. The installation work began in May 1996 and con- sisted of laying conduit, pulling over 1 mile of cable, designing and pouring a foundation, installing a ground grid, and crimping approximately 250 lugs.!® A redundant termination cabinet was installed to by- pass the entire PQ2000 system, though such a bypass switch already exists within the PQ2000 system. The containerized equipment was delivered by truck in July 1996. It was lifted off the truck with a 60-ton crane and installed on the constructed concrete pad. The acceptance tests were completed, and the system has been in operation since December 1996. A sim- ple line diagram of the system is provided in Fig- ure 5-1. PQ2000 Power Quality System 4 MVA - 10 Second Rating Termination Cabinet T= #¥% ! Utility Farstormer Service rastuanv Drop lgctronic Selector Device 4 Battery Modules Isolation eee PY Yy BB KVA- continuous Transformer| 2,000 KVA - 100 seconds, ‘System Container Figure 5-1. Line Diagram of PQ2000 Power Quality System. 5-2 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES The system consists of three pieces of equipment and a utility termination cabinet. The modular container- ized equipment is suited for outdoor installation. The system container is capable of housing eight, 250- kVA modular battery strings and its charger and in- verter bridge. The main container also houses the system controller. The system container at the Slash Pine site has four battery strings capable of carrying up to 1 MVA of critical load. The site at present has a load of approximately 650 kVA. The battery modules and associated PCSs are con- nected to an electronic selector device (ESD) through an isolation transformer. The ESD continuously monitors the utility service and switches to battery power when it detects undesirable distortions in the supply waveform. The transfer occurs within % to % Hertz, thus providing seemingly uninterruptible power to the connected loads. 5.4 System Installation and Op- eration The system has been in operation since December 1996 and has protected the factory against supply disturbances more than 50 times as of July 1997. The footprint of the three pieces of equipment com- bined is ~175 square feet.'? Including equipment separation spaces, a total of only 400-500 square feet of outdoor space is required for installation. The compact design for the 2-MW/10-second system and the outdoor installation capability lowers the installa- tion cost and provides siting flexibility." Many power quality systems use the on-line mode, which regenerates the incoming sine wave, to control power quality. In contrast, the PQ2000 uses a line- interactive concept for conditioning the raw utility power and switching to battery power only when the disturbance is acute. Since the PQ2000 system does not continuously regenerate the supply waveform, it does not protect against harmonic distortions. How- ever, line-interactive systems have lower operating costs compared to on-line systems because of their smaller parasitic loads. This becomes a major cost- saving advantage for large systems. The ESD in the PQ2000 system, which continuously monitors the supply voltage, has a continuous loss of ~1% (a parasitic load of 20 kVA). Corresponding on-line systems typically have a continuous loss of ~4%.!° OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM After analyzing numerous commercially available systems, a 1-MVA/5-minute, battery-based UPS sys- tem was chosen as the closest alternate to the PQ2000. It was assumed that two such systems would be connected in parallel to achieve the 2-MW power rating. When there was a deficiency in data for com- puting the LCC of this alternative system, relevant data obtained by the Energy Storage Association” from other equipment manufacturers were used. It was found that the alternate system had a lower initial capital cost but had a higher operational and maintenance cost, mainly due to higher parasitic losses in the system. Overall, the LCC of both sys- tems is about the same (when discounting the costs at 10%). Organizations with a lower cost of capital will favor the equipment with the higher capital cost and lower O&M cost: the PQ2000 system, in this case. Similarly, organizations with a higher cost of capital will favor the alternate system which had lower capi- tal cost. The detailed LCC analysis of the PQ2000 and the competing system are given in the appendix in Tables AS5-] and-A5-2. Both LCCs-are compared in a sum- mary form in Table 5-1. The notes given below the appendix tables explain the basis on which the num- bers were derived and the costs included. It is apparent from the table that initial capital costs for the PQ2000 system are higher but are compen- sated by lower electricity costs and cell replacement cost. Overall, the LCC for the two systems are quite similar. Figure 5-2 illustrates the various components of the discounted LCC of the two systems. 5.5 Discussion The PQ2000 is an innovative product that received the coveted R&D Magazine’s R&D 100 award in 1997. The innovative features include a large power rating, batteries optimized to provide short-duration protection, modularity, outdoor installation, and transportability. It is the first battery-based power quality system designed for providing facility-level protection. Conventional UPS systems tend to be used for equipment-specific power quality protection. The PQ2000 is an off-line system that maintains line- interactivity through a static switch. The result is that 5-3 _ BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM CASE STUDIES Table 5-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems Cost Category PQ2000 Alternate PW System—UPS Capital Cost ($K) Site Preparation and Installation 34 5 Interconnect Equipment 49 49 Equipment Cost 873 650 Taxes and Permits 67 46 Setup Cost 34 15 Total Initial Cost 1,057 765 O&M: Cost ($K Maintenance Cost 348 341 Insurance and Taxes 73 56 Electricity Cost 127 358 Cell Replacement 50 182 Total O&M Cost Over 20 Years 598 937 Life Cycle Cost ($K) $1,650 $1,700 1.80 | 1.60 1.40 1,20 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -<— Alternate PQ System-UPS PQ2000 Figure 5-2. Components of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems (in $M). 5-4 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM parasitic losses with the PQ2000 are significantly smaller than those with a UPS. The battery replace- ment cost for the PQ2000 is substantially lower as well. The PQ2000 uses inexpensive lead-acid batter- ies that are mass-produced for vehicles start- ing/lighting/ignition applications. In contrast, the alternative UPS system in this study currently uses more expensive VRLA batteries. The set-up costs for the PQ2000 are greater than that of the UPS competi- tion because the system requires a crane and a crew to unpack and mount the equipment. The set-up costs are less for the alternate UPS because the equipment comes in smaller containers and the cost of a crane and a crew to install the system is not incurred. Battery life is assumed to be 5 years for both opera- tions. However, this has not yet been demonstrated. Shorter battery life will have an adverse impact on the LCC of both systems, with the impact being more severe for the UPS system. A four-year battery life results in LCCs of $1.68M and $1.79M for the PQ2000 and the UPS alternative, respectively. Omnion Power Engineering Corporation, the succes- sor of AC Battery, reviewed a draft of this LCC analysis of the PQ2000 system. Comments suggest that both capital and operating costs have dropped significantly when compared to the Oglethorpe sys- tem. Such price decreases are to be expected in a new technology as the developer improves the efficiency of manufacturing. LCC of a similar system today is expected to be approximately $1.3M as opposed to about $1.65M shown in Table 5-1. The economic attractiveness of the PQ2000 unit clearly improves as its capital cost is decreased. BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 5-6 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES IMPACT OF FUTURE COST REDUCTIONS 6. Impact of Future Cost Reductions A previous report” analyzed the capital cost of the four BESSs considered here. That analysis also sur- veyed the BESS vendors regarding the cost reduction potential on similar BESSs. Table 6-1 shows current and projected capital costs for the four BESSs. The table also shows the impact of achieving the projected cost reduction on the LCC. As expected, capital cost reductions do have a favor- able impact on the LCC of BESSs and enhances their competitive position. Table 6-1 assumes that no capital cost reduction will occur with the competitive technologies. This assumption is predicated on the fact that the competitive options are generally mature technologies and further cost reduction will be incre- mental and negligible. The lead-acid batteries in the BESS are a mature technology as well and further cost reductions will be modest. However, optimiza- tion of the PCSs in BESSs, as well as improving sys- tems integration, will likely play an important role in the anticipated cost reduction of BESSs. Table 6-1. Comparison of Current and Projected Costs for BESS Technologies and Competitive Options (in $M) System Current Projected Current | Projected | LCC of Competitive Capital Cost | Capital Cost” | LCC Lcc? Option PREPA 21.40 18.19 25.2 21.99 29.5 MP&L 1.89 1.61 3.44 3.16 4.30 Vernon 4.25 1.61 6.34 5.70 4.30 Oglethorpe 1.06 0.85 1.65 1.44 1.70 6-1 IMPACT OF FUTURE COST REDUCTIONS BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 6-2 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES CONCLUSIONS 7. Conclusions The two BESS projects installed by PREPA and MP&L on the supply-side to improve dynamic op- erating benefits have unique attributes, namely: 1. Isolated, island utilities with high fuel oil prices, which are two to three times the national average. 2. Combustion turbines and diesel generators that are operated inefficiently under partial loads, thus increasing expensive fuel consumption. There are other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world that have the same characteristics. BESSs at current costs enjoy a competitive advantage for such applications. These applications represent a high value-added but a somewhat limited market. Utility- scale battery energy storage is an emerging technol- ogy and system vendors must rely on these high value-added niche markets to achieve system cost reductions that will enable them to supply cost- competitive systems to the potentially large markets throughout the electric utility industry. The two other battery energy storage projects help customers solve power quality problems. The power quality issue has become increasingly important in recent years. Several estimates” indicate that pro- ductivity losses nationally due to power quality problems are enormous. This analysis shows that for the two applications considered, the BESSs are com- petitive with commercially available alternatives. The LCC estimates are based on current costs of BESSs. As BESS costs are reduced with time, its competitive position will improve. Operational experiences with the four BESSs vary from several months to a few years. Projections of O&M costs based on such limited data are difficult. Vendor interviews have been used to obtain actual O&M costs. The cost data on the competing tech- nologies considered for the two power quality appli- cations were also developed on the basis of vendor estimates. Clearly the LCC estimates will change if the O&M costs deviate substantially from those con- sidered here. . As expected, capital cost reductions do have a favor- able impact on the LCC of BESSs and enhances their competitive position. 7-1 CONCLUSIONS BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES Intentionally Left Blank 7-2 BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ENDNOTES 8. Endnotes Robert, Brown and Rudolph Yanuck, Life Cycle Costing: Practical Guide to Energy Managers. The Fairmont Press, Atlanta, GA, 1980. Fabrycky Wolter, Life Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis. Prentice Hall International Series, 1991. Sydney Reiter, The Financial Evaluation of En- ergy Costs and Projects. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1985. Paul Butler, Battery Energy Storage for Utility Applications: Phase 1 - Opportunities Analysis. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 94-2605, UC-212, October 1994. Information provided by discussions PREPA Generating Planning Division. W. Torres, Economic Benefits of the PREPA 20 MW Battery Energy Storage Facility in Proceed- ings of the Fifth International Conference on Batteries for Utility Energy Storage. San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 1995. Due to the need for extensive piling at site, the original project cost of $130M was revised to $160M. Without the need for piling the per-unit cost would have been $540/kW. Piling, or shor- ing up the concrete pad, was necessary because the ground was unsteady and needed additional underground support. Department of Energy/Energy Information Ad- ministration, Cost and Quality of Fuels for Elec- tric Utility Plants 1996. DOE/EIA-0191(96), July 1997. Nicolas Miller, et al., A VRLA Battery Energy Storage System for Metlakatla, Alaska, in Pro- ceedings of the Energy Storage Association No- vember 1996 Meeting. Amelia Island, FL, May 1997, Demarest et al., Battery storage all but eliminates diesel generator. Electrical World, June 1997. George Hunt, Battery Energy Storage Systems for Metlakatla, Alaska, in Proceedings of the En- ergy Storage Association Spring 1997 Meeting. Washington, D.C., May 1997. George Hunt, Design and Commissioning of VRLA Battery Energy Storage Systems for Backing-up Critical Environmental Loads in Proceedings of the Fifth European Battery Con- Jerence. Barcelona, Spain, September 1996. Information provided by MP&L. Data provided by MP&L. Information provided by MP&L. Power quality workshop sponsored by Oglethorpe Power and Electric Power Research with 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Institute, Industry Power Quality Solutions: PQ2000 Demonstration and Field Test. Amelia Island, FL, November 1996. System container = 7 feet x16 feet, ESD = 5 feet x 10 feet, Isolation transformer = 4 feet x 4 feet The footprint is comparable to those designed by Liebert Corp., Best Power Technology Inc, and others. However, all of these systems are re- quired to be housed indoors. The comparison was made with UT3220, the 220-kVA on-line system manufactured by Best Power Technology Inc., Necedah, WI. This sys- tem has a on-line-mode efficiency of 96% and economy mode (line-interactive mode) efficiency of 97%. Richard Schweinburg of Southern California Edison, Database on Large UPS Systems presen- tation, and Renewable Energy and Energy Stor- age: A Partnership That Makes Sense presenta- tion in Proceedings of Energy Storage Association Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 30-May 1, 1997. Abbas Akhil, Shiva Swaminathan, and Rajat K. Sen. Cost Analysis of Energy Storage Systems for Electric Utility Applications. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 97-0443, UC-1350, Febru- ary 1997. Projected capital costs were based on the Cost Analysis of Energy Storage Systems for Electric Utility Applications, which determined that large BESSs would achieve cost reductions of 10- 20%. Thus, in this analysis, a rate of 15% cost reduction was used for PREPA, MP&L, and Vernon. The same report projected that BESS power quality systems would achieve cost reduc- tions of 20%. This formula was applied when determining the projected cost reductions for Oglethorpe. The same method for determining projected capital costs was used for determining projected LCC, although O&M costs were assumed to re- main constant with only capital costs being re- duced by 15% or 20%. (See footnote 24). Power quality workshop sponsored by Oglethorpe Power and Electric Power Research Institute, Industry Power Quality Solutions: PQ2000 Demonstration and Field Test. Amelia Island, FL, November 1996. Power quality workshop sponsored by Oglethorpe Power and Electric Power Research Institute, Industry Power Quality Solutions: 8-1 ENDNOTES PQ2000 Demonstration and Field Test. Amelia Island, FL, November 1996. BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES 8-2 Detailed Life Cycle Costs BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS CASE STUDIES APPENDIX A A2-1, A2-2. A3-1. A3-2. A4-1, A4-2. AS5-1. AS-2. Tables Life Cycle Cost of the 20-MW/14.1-MWh Battery Energy Storage System at the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Life Cycle Cost of Oil-Fired Combustion Turbines for Spinning Reserve—Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Life Cycle Cost of the Battery Energy Storage System at Metlakatla Power & Light Life Cycle Cost of Operating Diesel Generators for Load Following at Metlakatla Power & Light Life Cycle Cost of the Battery Energy Storage System at the GNB Technologies Vernon Lead Smelting Facility Life Cycle Cost of Diesel Standby Generator with Induction Coupling for Power Quality Applications for Vernon Lead Smelting Facility Life Cycle Cost of Oglethorpe Power’s PQ2000 Power Quality Battery Energy Storage System Life Cycle Cost of UPS Power Quality System for Oglethorpe A-2 Table 2-1. Life Cycle Cost Year of Operation CAPITAL COST ($K) A. Equipment load interface IB. Power conversion system C, Batteries & accessories D. Monitors & controls E. Facilities F. Financing IG. Transportation IH. Taxes |. Project management J. Start-up & maintenance TOTAL INITIAL COST O&M COST ($K) Fixed Costs IK. Salaries and wages IL. Transportation & allowance IM. Maintenance contracts IN. Consumables & supplies Variable Costs 10. Electricity & water use P. Consumables & supplies Q. Battery replacement TOTAL O&M GOST TOTAL COST ($k) Discount Rate Discount Factor Discounted Total Cost ($K) LIFE CYCLE COST ($k) of the 20-MW/14.1-MWE Battery Energy Storage Syste at the 1 2 3 4 s 6 ? g 4 Putrte Rico Electric Power Authority o 4 2 8 w 6 4K 0 1 nm 2 1% 2 672 | 5,713 4,641 1,244 4,748 1,000 891 1,877 614 21,400 { | 175] 175] 175[ 175{ 175[ 175] 175] 175] 175[ 175 175| 175] «175[ 175] 175] 175) 175{ 175] 175[ 175] 12| 12| 12| 12 12 12 12 12 12] 12 12 12 12 12 qa; 12{ 12) 12) #12] = 12] 50/50 50] 50] 50] ~—sS0]~—Ss50 50/50, —s 50) 50/50 50, 50/50 50| 50; 50] 50 50 so]. 50/50 50] ~— 50]. Sof ~—s 50] ~— ss 50f. 50]_~—Cs«550 50 50,50, 50] S50 50| 50; 5o/ 50 50 ‘of 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10] 10 10 10] 10 10 10] 1o[ to} 10] 10 10) 2020-20] 20f- Ss ao, Ss of Sof Ss ofS 20]_—Ss 220 20 20[ 20.20 20 20o[ 20] 20{ 20 20 3,000) 3i7|_3i7| 317| 317] 317| 317| 317| 3t7| 317| 317] 3,317| 37] t7| 317} 317] ai7] 317| 317} at7| 317 317|_ 317] 317] 317] 317] 317] 317] 8t7]_—8t7]_ 317] 3,317] 3t7]_ 317] 317317] 317] 317] 3t7]_ 3t7] 317 10% 1.0] 0.91] 0.83, 0.75] 0.68] 0.62] 0.56] O51] 0.47] 0.42] 0.39] 0.35] 0.32] 0.29] 0.26] 0.24] 0.22] 0.20] 0.18] 0.16] 0.15) 21,400] 288] 262] 238] 217] 197] 179] 163] 148] 134] 122) 1,163] 101 92) 83] 76 63] 57 a 47 69 A-3 Table A24, Life Cycle Cort of the 20-MW/14/4-MWEh Battery Energy Storage Sytem at the Putrte Rico Electric Power Authority (Continucd) NOTES (information provided by PREPA Battery Energy Storage Plant Manager, Rafael Ruiz, and by William Monriog of the PREPA Generating Planning Division) [a OZSPraA5 29 "MOONS Includes transformer, protection gear, and other interconnect equipment. Includes the rectifier/inverter bridge, AC and DC switchgear. Installed cost of 6,000 cells, racks, watering system, electrolytic agitation system, temperature measurement, etc. Facility monitoring computers, software, and associated equipment. Cost of building and amenities, access road, landscaping. Finance cost during construction. Transportation cost included in individual equipment prices. Taxes. Project management expenses include design, specifications, bid evaluation, construction management, etc. Costs associated with start-up. Salaries and wages of four employees at location: plant manager, electrician, general help, and office assistant working one 8-hour shift, five days per week. Site vehicle maintenance and travel allowances. Includes as needed contracts with GE, C&D, and Max control systems. It also includes switchyard maintenance and waste disposal contracts. Portions of the costs associated with consumable and supplies are variable. includes replacement of failed cells, battery maintenance, PCS & switchyard maintenance, and office supplies. During standby frequency regulation/voltage control mode of operation passes approximately 1 MWh through the BES daily. Assuming a round-trip efficiency of 70% and electricity cost of $60/MWh, annual cost is ~$7K. Considering 30 times a year plant operates, in rapid discharge mode, recharge electricity consumption and air conditioning loads, and other parasitic loads, the electricity consumption totals ~$10K annually. Battery cells are topped up with demineralized water every six months. Though demineralized water has a commercial value, the BES facility obtains it from PREPA's purchases, and it is not charged to the BES. Portions of the costs associated with consumables and supplies are fixed. Includes replacement of failed cells, battery maintenance, PCS & switchyard maintenance, and office supplies. The 6,000 cells are warranted for 10 years and are expected to be replaced once in Year 11 at a cost of $500/cell. Table A2-2. Life Cycke Cort of Oit-Fired Combustion Turbines for Spinning Resewe—Purrte Rice Electric Power Arthority Year of Operation 0 4 2 3 4 s 6 ? g 4 10 oT) 42 3 14 4s 6 n 8 7. 2 CAPITAL COST ($k) A. Capital Cost 3,960] Ll TT TOTAL INITIAL COST | 3,960} O&M COST ($k! Fixed Costs IB. From production cost data 10 10 10| 10 10 10 10| 10 10 10 10 10| 10 10 10 10 10 10) 10} 10} ($30/MW-week) for (MW. Variable Costs IC. Fuel cost 2,800] 2,828] 2,856) 2,885} 2,913] 2,943) 2,972) 3,002) 3,032 3,062] 3,093] 3,124] 3,155} 3,187] 3,219) 3,251) 3,283) 3,316] 3,349] 3,383) | | TOTAL O&M COST cad 2,838] 2,866] 2,895} 2,924] 2,953} 2,982} 3,012} 3,042) 3,072 3,103] 3,134] 3,165] 3,197) 3,229] 3,261] 3,293] 3,326] 3,359) 3,393) TOTAL COST ($k) 2,810 2,838] 2,866] 2,895] 2,924] 2,953} 2,982) 3,012} 3,042) 3,072 3,103} 3,134] 3,165) 3,197] 3,229) 3,261] 3,293) 3,326] 3,359) 3,399) Discount Rate 10% Discount Factor 1.0} 0.91 0.83} 0.75 0.68 0.62] 0.56) 0.51 0.47} 0.42 0.39) 0.35 0.32} 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22} 0.20) 0.18} 0.16] 0.15) Discounted total cost ($K) 2,555] 2,345] 2,153] 1,977] 1,815] 1,667) 1,530) 1,405} 1,290) 1,185) 1,088: 999) 917 842 773 710 652 598} 549) 504 LIFE CYCLE COST ($k) NOTES (information provided by PREPA Battery Energy Storage Plant Manager, Rafael Ruiz, and by William Monriog of the PREPA Generating Planning Division) A. Battery Energy Storage cannot continuously supply power indefinitely because of its limited energy supply capability. However, 20 MW of battery energy storage capacity is better able to provide 20 MW of spinning reserve capacity than 20 MW of combustion turbines due to the fast response of the BESS. Thus, the presence of the 20-MW BESS diminishes the need to build spinning reserve generation. Because the BESS cannot carry 20-MW loads indefinitely, a partial, 30%-capacity credit will be assigned to the BESS plant. A cost of approximately $3.9M may be avoided assuming 6 MW of $660/kW gas-turbine generation capacity can be eliminated with use of the BES. IB. Obtained from production costing model for the 83-MW turbine. IC. The 83-MW plant is expected to operate at 36% annual plant factor, generating 262 GWh of electricity a year. Operating at 60% of full load, the plant produces this energy at a heat rate of 13,300 Btu/kWh. If the plant were able to produce that energy with 10,200 Btu/kWh (full load heat rate), the annual cost saving is $4.6M. Prorating, (since the 60% of full load operation of the 83-MW plant is able to provide 33 MW of spinning reserve), the final cost saving with operation of the 20-MW battery is $2.8M. Assuming fuel costs increase by 1% per annum in real terms, the fuel cost saving discounted over 20 years is $25.5M. A-5 Table AB-1. Life Cycle Cost of the Battery Energy Storage System at Metlahatle Power ¥ Light Year of Operation 0 1 “2 3 4 s 6 ? g 4 10 " 12 B 14 4S 6 n 19 4 20 ICAPITAL COST ($K) A. Batteries & installation 570 IB. Power conditioning system 361 IC. System monitoring/control 209 D. Filters 171 IE. Engineering services 323 IF, Transportation & taxes 50 IG. Facilities 209 TOTAL INITIAL COST 1,893 I O&M COST ($K) Fixed Costs [ IH. Salaries & consumables 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100} 100} 100) 100) 100 Variable Cost |. Battery replacement cost . 400 400, J. Equip & software maint: 50) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50| 50 50 50) 50 50 50 50 50} SO}; 50; 50) TOTAL O&M COST 150) 150 150 150 150 150) 150 550 150 150 150 150) 150 150 150 550} 150) 150] 150] 150} TOTAL COST ($K) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 550 150 150 150 150 150 150] 150] 550) 150} 150) 150} 150) Discount Rate 10% Discount Factor 1.0] 0.91] 0.83} 0.75} 0.68]. 0.62) 0.56) 0.51) 0.47; 0.42} 0.39 0.35} 0.32] 0.29) 0.26} 0.24) 0.22) 0.20] 0.18] 0.16} 0.15 Discounted Total Cost 1,893 136 124 113 102 93 85 77| 257 64 58 53 48 43 39 36 120] 30) 27} 25] 22 LIFE CYCLE COST ($k) p &8,444) INOTES (information provided by GNB Technologies, George Hunt) Includes racking, fuses, etc. Includes isolation transformers, fuses, CTs, PT, etc. Station control, battery monitoring, outloop control, data acquisition, etc. Filters and HV end of switchyard: capacitors, fuse contactors. Project Management, systems study and design, site construction management. Transportation of batteries to site. No taxes incurred. Foundation, building, HVAC, lighting, auxiliary equipment. Installation capable of remote operation. An annual cost of ~50kK/year | is estimated. ll. | Batteries are expected to be replaced after 8 years. J. Maintenance of the equipment, facility, and software. LOTMMOOWS A-6 Table AB-2. Life Cycle Cost of Operating Diesel Generators for Land Following ot Metlalatle Power ¥ Light Year of Operation 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 g 4 10 OH 12 3 14 4S 6 nN 19 9 20 CAPITAL COST ($K' A. Sunk Cost - TOTAL INITIAL COST : O&M COST ($k: Fixed Costs B. Overhauls—Spinning 230: + -| 370) + -| 230 + : 370) ° -| 230 + -| 370 - -| 230 + Mode |-Standby Mode Variable Cost IC. Savings of diesel fuel 350) 350} 350) 350) 350) 350) 350) 350) 350} 350] 350} 350) 350) 350/ 350] 350) 350 350; 350) 350 cost D. Other O&M cost 50 50) 50 50 50) 50 50 50 50 50) 50 50 50) 50 50 50} 50 50} 50} 50 TOTAL O&M COST 630} 400; 400) 770) 400) 400) 630; 400} 400) 770 400} 400} 630) 400) 400} 770) 400; 400] 630} 400 TOTAL COST ($K) : 630} 400} 400) 770) 400) 400) 630 400] 400} 770 400] 400} 630) 400] 400} 770) 400 400} 630} 400) Discount Rate 10% Discount Factor 1.0) 0.91} 0.83) 0.75) 0.68] 0.62} 0.56] 0.51) 0.47} 0.42] 0.39) 0.35} 0.32) 0.29] 0.26} 0.24) 0.22] 0.20] 0.18} 0.16] 0.15} Discounted Total Cost 573] 331 301 526} 248] 226] 323) 187! 170 297| 140} 127; 182 105] 96 168} 79 72] 103] 59] - LIFE CYCLE COST ($K) INOTES (information provided by MP&L, Dutch Achenbach) A. The 3-MW diesel is already in place and operating. IB. The diesel units require minor overhauls every 20,000 hours of operation and major overhauls every 40,000 hours. Major and minor overhauls cost ~$370K and ~$230K, respectively. IC. It is estimated that @$0.78/gallon, 450,000 gallons of diesel fuel could be saved. , ID. Itis estimated that all other O&M cost savings associated with the operation of the diesel is ~$50K p.a. A-7 Table Al-1. Life Cyele Cost of the Batlery Energy Storage System ot the GNE Technologies Vermon lead Smelting Facility Year of Operation 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 ? g 4 10 n 12 B 14 4s 16 n 18 4 20 ICAPITAL COST ($K) (A. Batteries & accessories 1,375 B, Power conversion/controls 825 IC. Balance of Plant 1,500 1D. Transportation & packing 195 E. Taxes 350 TOTAL INITIAL COST 4,245 I O&M COST ($k) Fixed Costs IF. Salaries & consumables 100} 100 100 100} 100) 100} 100 100 100 100 100) 100 100} 100) 100 100} 100; 100) 100} 100) Variable Cost iG. Battery replacement cost 1,200 1,200 H. Equipment and facility 50) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50} 50! 50] 50 50) maint: TOTAL O&M COST 150} 150 150 150} 150; 150} 150) 1,350 150 150 150 150 150} 150] 150) 1,350] 150] 150} 150} 150 TOTAL COST ($K) 150} 150 150) 150] 150) 150) 150) 1,350 150 150 150 150) 150} 150) 150) 1,350} 150} 150) 150} 150) Discount Rate 10% Discount Factor 1.0] 0.91] 0.83} 0.75} 0.68) 0.62] 0.56] 0.51 0.47] 0.42 0.39) 0.35} 0.32] 0.29] 0.26) 0.24 0.22} 0.20} 0.18] 0.16} 0.15 Discounted Total Cost 4,245 136) 124 113] 102 93 85) 77 630 64] 58 53 48 43) 39 36 294) 30 27| 25 22 LIFE CYCLE COST ($K) , 6,943. INOTES (information provided GNB Technologies, George Hunt) A. Battery installation, racking, monitoring, etc. IB. Power conversion system and control systems. IC. Butler building, foundation, facility equipment, project management, etc. ID. Factory to site transport and packaging. E. Taxes: state, municipal. F. The BES facility is not staffed and requires only periodic maintenance, estimated to cost not more than ~5OK per annum. IG. Battery expected to be replaced in Years 8 and 16. IH. Estimated equipment and facility maintenance cost. A-8 Table A-2. Life Cycle Cont Year of Operation CAPITAL COST ($k) A. Equipment cost B. Step-up transformer TOTAL INITIAL COST O&M COST ($K) Fixed Costs iC. Parasitic electricity charges ID. Maintenance contracts Wariable Cost TOTAL O&M COST TOTAL COST ($k) Discount Rate Discount Factor Discounted Total Cost LIFE CYCLE COST ($k) 0 q 2 3 4 sO ? g 4 10 "1 12 3 14 4s 6 n 8 49 20 [2.500 2,000) [_ 4500 I 100 100 100 100) 100 100 100) 100) 100 100) 100 100) 100 100 100 100) 100} 100] 100] 100) 100 100 100 100} 100 100 100 100 100 100 100) 100) 100 100 100 100 100) 100} 100; 100; 100] 100 200 200: 200; 200} 200) 200} 200 200 200; 200 200} 200 200 200 200; 200} 200} 200] 200) 200) 200 200) 200; 200, 200) 200] 200 200 200 200 200 200] 200] 200 200) 200} 200} 200} 200} 200 10% 1.0] 0.91] 0.83] 0.75) 0.68} 0.62) 0.56} 0.51 0.47] 0.42 0.39) 0.35; 0.32} 0.29) 0.26] 0.24) 0.22} 0.20} 0.18] 0.16) 0.15] 4,500 182 165 150, 137 124 113 103] 93 85 77 70 64 58 53 48 44) 40 36 33] 30) ‘26,203 INOTES (information provided by Holec Power Protection, Robert Hall) A. Containerized equipment to cost $1.25M each for the 1.6 MVA units. Uncontainerized will cost ~$1M. B. The step-up transformer to step up the voltage from 480 V to 4,160 V at the substation serving the facility. iC, Constant parasitic load of 200 kVA for a year at an electricity cost 5 cents/kWh is ~$100K p.a. D. Maintenance contract to maintain two 1.6-MVA units is ~$100K p.a. Table AS-4, Life Cyele Cort of Ogletharpe Power's PQ2000 Power Quality Battry Energy Storage System Year of Operation 0 4 2 3 4 s 6 ? g 4 10 n 12 B 14 4S 16 n 12 49 20 ICAPITAL COST ($K) A. Site Preparation & Install: 34] B. Interconnect Equipment 49 IC. Equipment Cost 873 ID. Taxes & Permits 67| IE. Set-up Cost 34] | TOTAL INITIAL COST 1,057 O&M COST ($K' Fixed Costs IF. Maintenance Cost 41 44 41 41 41 41 41 44 41 41 41 41 44 41 4 41 41 44 41 41 IG. Insurance & Taxes 10 10} 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Variable Cost IH. Electricity Cost 15| 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15) 15 15 15 15 15 15) 15 15 15 15] |. Cell Replacement 38 38 38 TOTAL O&M COST 66 66 66 66 104 66 66 66) 66] 104 61 61 61 61 99 61 61 61 61 61 TOTAL COST ($k) 66] 66] G6] 66] 104] 66] Go| 66] 66] 104] oi] 61] 61] 61] 99] 67 6] et] 61] 61 Discount Rate 10% : Discount Factor 1.0] 0.91] 0.83} 0.75] 0.68) 0.62} 0.56} 0.51} 0.47) 0.42{ 0.39) 0.35} 0.32} 0.29) 0.26) 0.24) 0.22) 0.20] 0.18) 0.16} 0.15) Discounted Total Cost 1,057 66] 55 50 45 65 37 34 31 28 40 21 19) 18 16) 24 13) 12 1 10} 9 LIFE CYCLE COST ($k) «1,655, A-10 Table AS-4. Life Cyele Cost of Oglethorpe Power's PQ2000 Power Quality Battery Energy Storage System (Comtinutd) INOTES (information provided by AC Battery, William Nerbun, and by Omnion, Brad Roberts) EoumMoop> Estimate made by AC Battery Corp. Includes cost associated with grounding grid, concrete pad, cable ways, and fencing. Estimate made by AC Battery Corp. Includes cable, current and potential transformer, safety eyewash, shower, and monitor station. Delivered cost of equipment, estimated by AC Battery Corp. Estimated to be 7% of equipment and installation cost by AC Battery. Estimated cost for crane and crew to unpack and mount equipment, training, and connection of equipment. AC Battery estimates customers to incur $7K/year for in-house maintenance and a $34K/year extended warranty charge. Estimated to be 1% of initial equipment cost for the first 10 years and 0.5% of equipment cost in the last 10 years. Continuous power loss of 20 kVA in the electronic selector device @ 6 cents/kWh = $10.5K/year. Corresponding air-conditioning load $3K/year. HVAC cost additional $1.5K/year. Battery replacement cost of $38K every five years. A-11 Year of Operation CAPITAL COST ($K) A. Site Preparation & Install: B. Interconnect Equipment iC. Equipment Cost D. Taxes & Permits E. Set-up Cost TOTAL INITIAL COST O&M COST ($K’ Fixed Costs F, Maintenance Cost iG. Insurance & Taxes Variable Cost IH. Electricity Cost ll. Cell Replacement TOTAL O&M COST TOTAL COST ($K) Discount Rate Discount Factor Discounted Total Cost LIFE CYCLE COST ($K) Table AS-2. Life Cycle Cost of UPS Power Quality System for Oglethorpe 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 9 4 0 4 2 8 % 6% © 7 8 1% 2 5] 49 { 650 46 15 L 765 [ L tis{t5{ t5] 15] 115] 15] 15/ 15| 15] 115) 15] ‘t5| t5[ 15] 1715] 15] 5] 5] 15] 15 76] 7.6| 76] 76] 76, 76| 7.6] 76| vel 76] 38/ 38] 36] 38] 38] 38] 38 38] sel 3.8 _| 42| 42 42| 421 42/42) 4al” 4a] 4a) aa} 4a] 42] 42] aay aat 42] 42] aa] aay 150 150 150 jes] 64/64/64! 315) 64) o4! cal Gal 315! co] 60] 60/ 6o/ si1o/ co! Gof 60{ 60] 60 jes] 64]. 64] 64] 315] 64) G4] Ga] G4] 315) GO| 60] 60] 60] 310] 60] 60] 60] 60] 60 10% 1.0[ 0.91] 0.83] 0.75] 0.68] 0.62] 056] 0.51] 0.47| 0.42[ 0.39] 0.35] 0.32] 0.29] 0.26] 0.24] 0.22] 0.20] 0.18] 0.16] 0.15 765] 150/63] 48] 44] 195] 36] 33] 30] 27] 123, 21] 19] 17] te] 75] 13] 12] 11] ‘10 9 “4,704 A-12 Table AS-2. Life Cyele Cort of UPS Power Quality System for Oglethorpe (Continued) INOTES (information provided by Best Power, Chris Loeffler) A. It is assumed that the power quality system will be installed indoors in an existing building. Thus, the cost in this category is minimal. The opportunity cost of the space occupied is considered under maintenance cost. It is estimated that additional wiring and grounding will cost $5K. This estimate is identical to that made by AC Battery. Most of the power quality suppliers require local contractors to carry out installation. Delivered cost of two 5-minute, 1-MVA systems was estimated to cost $300K. Paralleling equipment to cost ~50K. Estimated to be 7% of equipment cost—identical to the AC Battery estimate. Visit by a service person from equipment supplier for training & start-up. Because equipment comes in smaller containers, cost of crane and crew required for PQ2000 is not needed. Preventive maintenance contract cost for a 220-kVA, 5-minute system was obtained. Nine such systems can be connected to achieve 2-MW capacity. The preventive maintenance contracts for a 220-kVA system is $16K (for 5 years) for the PCS, and $6.5K (for 5 years) for the batteries. Assuming a volume discount of 25% for the nine systems, the 5-year maintenance contract cost for the complete system is ~$145K. In-house maintenance cost is estimated to be ~$10K/year. In addition, the opportunity cost of occupying 500 square feet of indoor space is assumed to be $5K/year. Estimated to be 1% of initial equipment cost for the first 10 years and 0.5% of equipment cost in the last 10 years. Aconstant parasitic loss of 4% of equipment rating is experienced by on-line systems but is lowered to 3% under economy mode of operation (line- interactive). The parasitic loss of this system is assumed to be three times that of the PQ2000 system. This loss of 60 KVA at 6 cents/kWh h amounts to an cost of $31.5K/yr. The corresponding air-conditioning loads to cool equipment is $0K/year. Battery replacement cost of $150K for a 2-MW, 5-minute battery. Battery expected to be replaced every 5 years. A-13 ABB Power T&D Co., Inc. Attn: P. Danfors 16250 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 American Electric Power Service Corp. Attn: C. Shih 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 Applied Power Corporation Attn: Tim Ball Solar Engineering 1210 Homann Drive, SE Lacey, WA 98503 Ascension Technology Attn: Edward Kern Post Office Box 6314 Lincoln Center, MA 01773 Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Attn: Meera Kohler 1200 East 1* Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Bechtel Corporation Attn: W. Stolte P.O. Box 193965 San Francisco, CA 94119-3965 Berliner Kraft und Licht (BEWAG) Attn: K. Kramer Stauffenbergstrasse 26 1000 Berlin 30 GERMANY Business Management Consulting Attn: S. Jabbour 24704 Voorhees Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 C&D Charter Power Systems, Inc. (2) Attn: Dr. Sudhan S. Misra Attn: Dr. L. Holden Washington & Cherry Sts. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Distribution Argonne National Laboratories (2) Attn: W. DeLuca G. Henriksen CTD, Building 205 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 Arizona Public Service (2) Attn: R. Hobbs Herb Hayden 400 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 53999, MS-8931 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 AVO International Attn: Gary Markle 510 Township Line Rd. Blue Bell, PA 19422 Babcock & Wilcox Attn: Glenn Campbell P.O. Box 785 Lynchburg, VA 24505 California State Air Resources Board Attn: J. Holmes Research Division P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Calpine Corp. Attn: R. Boucher 50 W. San Fernando, Ste. 550 San Jose, CA 95113 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (2) Attn: T. Lovas J. Cooley P.O. Box 196300 Anchorage, AK 99519-6300 Consolidated Edison (2) _Attn: M. Lebow N. Tai 4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Corn Belt Electric Cooperative Attn: R. Stack P.O. Box 816 Bloomington, IL 61702 Delphi Energy and Engine Management Systems (3) Attn: J. Michael Hinga R. Galyen R. Rider P.O. Box 502650 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Alaska State Division Of Energy (3) Attn: P. Frisbey P. Crump B. Tiedeman 333 West Fourth Ave, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 EA Technology, Ltd. Attn: J. Baker Chester CH] 6ES Capenhurst, England UNITED KINGDOM Eagle-Picher Industries Attn: J. DeGruson C & Porter Street Joplin, MO 64802 Electrosource Attn: Michael Dodge P.O. Box 7115 Loveland, CO 80537 Eltech Research Corporation Attn: Dr. E. Rudd 625 East Street Fairport Harbor, OH 44077 Energetics, Inc. (3) Attn: H. Lowitt P. Taylor L. Charles 7164 Gateway Drive Columbia, MD 21046 Energetics, Inc. (4) Atm: M. Farber R. Scheer J. Schilling P. DiPietro 501 School St. SW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20024 Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Attn: Greg J. Ball 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1540 San Francisco, CA 94111 International Energy Systems, Ltd. Attn: G. Barker Chester High Road Nestor, South Wirral L64 UE UK UNITED KINGDOM East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. Attn: M. Stanton Deka Road Lyon Station, PA 19536 Electric Power Research Institute (3) Attn: S. Chapel S. Eckroad R. Schainker P. O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813 Electrochemical Engineering Consultants, Inc. Attn: P. Symons 1295 Kelly Park Circle Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems, Inc. Attn: D. Feder 35 Ridgedale Avenue Madison, NJ 07940 Energy Systems Consulting Attn: A. Pivec - 4] Springbrook Road Livingston, NJ 07039 Firing Circuits, Inc. Atin: J. Mills P.O. Box 2007 Norwalk, CT 06852-2007 General Electric Company Attn: N. Miller Building 2, Room 605 1 River Road Schenectady, NY 12345 General Electric Drive Systems Attn: D. Daly 1501 Roanoke Blvd. Salem, VA 24153 GE Industrial & Power Services Attn: Bob Zrebiec 640 Freedom Business Center King of Prussia, PA 19046 Giner, Inc. Attn: A. LaConti 14 Spring Street Waltham, MA 02254-9147 Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Atin: S. Haagensen Box 71249 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 GNB Technologies (4) Industrial Battery Company Attn: G. Hunt J. Szymborski R. Maresca J. Boehm Woodlake Corporate Park 829 Parkview Blvd. Lombard, IL 60148-3249 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (3) Attn: E. Caims K. Kinoshita F. McLarnon University of California One Cyclotron Road Berkeley, CA 94720 Longitude 122 West Attn: S. Schoenung 1241 Hobart St. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Lucent Technologies Attn: C. Mak 3000 Skyline Drive Mesquite, TX 75149 Lucent Technologies, Inc. Atm: J. Morabito Director, Global Research and Development P.O. Box 636 600 Mountain Avenue Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 GNB Technologies World Headquarters Attn: S. Deshpande’ 375 Northridge Road Atlanta, GA 30350 Hawaii Electric Light Co. Attn: C. Nagata P.O. Box 1027 Hilo, HI 96720 ILZRO (3) Attn: J. Cole P. Moseley C. Parker P.O. Box 12036 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Imperial Oil Resources, Ltd. Attn: R. Myers 3535 Research Rd NW Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2L 2K8 Innovative Power Sources Attn: Ken Belfer 1419 Via Jon Jose Road Alamo, CA 94507 Metlakatla Power & Light Attn: H. Achenbach P.O. Box 359 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Micron Corporation Attn: D. Nowack 158 Orchard Lane Winchester, TN 37398 ZBB Technologies, LTD. Attn: Robert J. Parry Managing Director 16 Emerald Tce. West Perth Western Australia 6005 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (6) Attn: L. Flowers J. Green S. Hock R. DeBlasio B. Stafford H. Thomas 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401-3393 New York Power Authority Attn: B. Chezar 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 NC Solar Center Attn: Bill Brooks Corner of Gorman and Western Box 7401 NCSU Raleigh, NC 27695-740 Northern States Power Attn: D. Zurn 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 NPA Technology Attn: Jack Brown Suite 700, Two University Place Durham, NC 27707 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (3) Attn: B. Hawsey, Bldg. 3025, MS-6040 J. Stoval, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070 J. VanCoevering, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070 B. Kirby, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070 P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Public Service Company of New Mexico Attn: J. Neal Manager, Premium Power Services Alvarado Square MS-BA52 Albuquerque, NM 87158 PEPCO Attn: Brad Johnson 1900 Pennsylvania NW Washington, DC 20068 Oglethorpe Power Company Attn: C. Ward 2100 E. Exchange Place P.O. Box 1349 Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Chief Technology Officer Attn: Robert Wills Advanced Energy Systems Riverview Mill Post Office Box 262 Wilton, NH 0308 Omnion Power Engineering Corporation Attn: H. Meyer 2010 Energy Drive P.O. Box 879 East Troy, WI 53120 Orion Energy Corp. Attn: Doug Danley 10087 Tyler Place #5 Tjamsville, MD 21754 Public Service Company of New Mexico Att: R. Flynn Senior Vice President Alvarado Square MS-2838 Albuquerque, NM 87158 International Business and Technology Services Inc. Attn: J. Neal Administrator Research and Development 9220 Tayloes Neck Rd. Nanjemoy, MD 20662 Gridwise Engineering Company Attn: B. Norris 121 Starlight Place Danville, CA 94526 Pacific Northwest Laboratory (2) Attn: J. DeSteese, K5-02 D. Brown Battelle Blvd. Richland, WA 99352 Power Technologies, Inc. Attn: P. Prabhakara 1482 Erie Blvd. P.O. Box 1058 Schenectady, NY 12301 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Attn: W. Torres G.P.O. Box 4267 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-426 Solar Electric Specialists Co. Mr. Jim Trotter 232-Anacapa St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 ENERTEC Attn: D. Butler 349 Coronation Drive Auchenflower, Queensland, 4066 P.O. Box 1139 Milton BC Qld 4064 AUSTRALIA Southern Company Services, Inc. (2) Research and Environmental Affairs 14N-8195 Attn: B. R. Rauhe, Jr. K. Vakhshoorzadeh 600 North 18” Street P.O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Al 35202-2625 Trace Technologies (2) Attn: Michael Behnke W. Erdman 6952 Preston Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 TRACE Engineering Attn: B. Roppenecker President 5916 195" Northeast Arlington, Washington 98223 RMS Company Attn: K. Ferris 87 Martling Ave. Pleasantville, NY 10570 Powercell Corporation (2) Attn: Reznor I. Orr Rick Winter 101 Main Street, Suite 9 Cambridge, MA 02142-1519 Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Attn: A. Randall 700 South Ash St. P.O. Box 5888 Denver, CO 80217 Siemens Solar Attn: Clay Aldrich 4650 Adohn Lane Post Office Box 6032 Camarillo, CA 93011 R&D Associates Attn: J. Thompson 2100 Washington Blvd. Arlington, VA 22204-5706 California Energy Commission Attn: Jon Edwards 1516 Ninth Street, MS-46 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sentech, Inc. (2) Attn: R. Sen K. Klunder 4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608 Bethesda, MD 20814 Sentech, Inc. Attn: Robert Reeves 9 Eaton Road Troy, NY 12180 Santa Clara University Attn: Charles Feinstein, Ph.D. Department of Decision and Information Sciences Leavey School of Business and Administration Santa Clara, CA 95053 SAFT Research & Dev. Ctr. Attn: Guy Chagnon 107 Beaver Court Cockeysville, MD 21030 Salt River Project (2) Attn: H. Lundstrom G.E. “Ernie” Palomino, P.E. MS PAB 357, Box 52025 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025 Southern California Edison Attn: R. N. Schweinberg 6070 N. Irwindale Ave., Suite I Irwindale, CA 91702 Soft Switching Technologies Attn: D. Divan 2224 Evergreen Rd., Ste. 6 Middleton, WI 53562 Solarex Attn: G. Braun 630 Solarex Court Frederick, MD 21701 The Solar Connection Attn: Michael Orians P.O. Box 1138 Morro Bay, CA 93443 Trojan Battery Company Attn: Jim Drizos 12380-Clark Street Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 U.S. Department of Energy Atm: C. Platt EE-12 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: K. Heitner Office of Transportation Technologies EE-32 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: R. Brewer EE-10 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 SEIA Attn: S. Sklar 122 C Street NW 4" Floor Washington, DC 20001-2104 SRI International Attn: C. Seitz 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Stored Energy Engineering (2) Attn: George Zink JR. Bish 7601 E. 88" Place Indianapolis, IN 46256 Stuart Kuritzky 347 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Superconductivity, Inc. (2) Attn: Jennifer Billman Michael Gravely P.O. Box 56074 Madison, WI 53705-4374 Switch Technologies Attn: J. Hurwitch 4733 Bethesda Ave., Ste. 608 Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: P. Patil Office of Transportation Technologies EE-32 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: T. Duong EE-32 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: J. Daley EE-12 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: A. Jelacic EE-12 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: N. Rossmeissl EE-13 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: Jim Rannels Photovoltaic Program EE-11 FORSTL 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585-0121 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: J. P. Archibald EE-90 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: M. B. Ginsberg EE-90 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: G. Buckingham Albuquerque Operations Office Technology Development Division P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 TU Electric R&D Programs Attn: James Fangue P.O. Box 970 Fort Worth, TX 76101 University of Missouri - Rolla Atm: M. Anderson 112 Electrical Engineering Building Rolla, MO 65401-0249 U.S. Department of Energy Atm: R. Eynon Nuclear and Electrical Analysis Branch EI-821 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 R. Weaver 777 Wildwood Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: A. Hoffman Office of Utility Technologies EE-10 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Navy Attn: Wayne Taylor Code 83B000D China Lake, CA 93555 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: A. G. Crawley EE-90 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: P. N. Overholt EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: J. Cadogan EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Commerce Attn: Dr. Gerald P. Ceasar Building 101, Rm 623 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Virginia Power Attn: Gary Verno Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Ellen, VA 23233 Walt Disney World Design and Eng’g. Attn: Randy Bevin P.O. Box 10,000 Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000 Yuasa, Inc. (3) Attn: N. Magnani F, Tarantino G. Cook P.O. Box 14145 2366 Bemville Road Reading, PA 19612-4145 The Technology Group, Inc. Atm: Tom Anyos 63 Linden Ave. Atherton, CA 94027-2161 ZBB Technologies, Inc. Attn: P. Eidler 11607 West Dearborn Wauwatosa, WI 53226-3961 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: R. Eaton Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Blvd. Building 17 Golden, CO 80401 Westinghouse Attn: Tom Matty © P.O. Box 17230 Baltimore, MD 21023 Westinghouse STC Atm: H. Saunders 1310 Beulah Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235 W. R. Grace & Company Attn: S. Strzempko 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 Yuasa-Exide, Inc. Attn: R. Kristiansen 35 Loch Lomond Lane Middleton, NY 10941-1421 Crescent EMC Attn: R. B. Sloan Executive Vice President P.O. Box 1831 Statesville, NC 28687 HL&P Energy Services Attn: George H. Nolin, CEM, P.E. Product Manager Premium Power Services P.O. Box 4300 Houston, TX 77210-4300 UFTO Attn: Edward Beardsworth 951 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301-3041 Distributed Utility Associates Attn: Joseph Iannucci 1062 Concannon Blvd. Livermore, CA 94550 SAFT America, Inc. Attn: Ole Vigerstol National Sales Manager 711 Industrial Blvd. Valdosta, GA 13601 ECG Consulting Group, Inc. Attn: Daniel R. Bruck Senior Associate 55-6 Woodlake Road Albany, NY 12203 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Attn: Gerald J. Keane Manager, Venture Development Energy Management Division 4400 Alafaya Trail Orlando, FL 32826-2399 The Brattle Group Attn: Thomas J. Jenkin 44 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138-3736 Exide Electronics Atm: John Breckenridge Director, Federal Systems Division 8609 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27615 Northern States Power Company Attn: Gary G. Karn, P.E. Consultant Electric Services 1518 Chestnut Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55403 Frost & Sullivan (2) Attn: Steven Kraft Dave Coleman 2525 Charleston Road Mountain View, CA 94043 C&D Powercom Attn: Larry S. Meisner Manager Product Marketing 1400 Union Meeting Road P.O. Box 3053 Blue Bell, PA 19422-0858 Tampa Electric Company Attn: Terri Hensley, Engineer P.O. Box 111 Tampa, FL 33601-0111 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: R. J. King EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: A. O. Bulawka EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 American Superconductor Corporation Attn: S. Amanda Chiu, P.E. Manager, Strategic Marketing Two Technology Drive Westborough, MA 01581 University of Texas at Austin Attn: John H. Price Research Associate Center for Electromechanics J. J. Pickel Research Campus Mail Code R7000 Austin, TX 78712 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: W. Butler PA-3 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: J. A. Mazer EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 VEDCO Energy Attn: Rick Ubaldi 12 Agatha Lane Wayne, New Jersey 07470 Intercon Limited (2) Attn: David Warar 6865 Lincoln Avenue Lincolnwood, IL 60646 Utility Photo Voltaic Group Attn: Steve Hester 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5802 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: P. Maupin ER-14 G-343/GTN Germantown, MD 20874-1290 MS-0513, R. Eagan (1000) MS-0953, W.E. Alzheimer (1500) MS-0953, J.T. Cutchen (1501) MS-0741, S. Varnado (6200) MS-0212, A. Phillips, (10230) MS-0340, J. Braithwaite (1832) MS-0343, W. Cieslak (1832) MS-0613, A. Akhil (1525) MS-0613, D. Doughty (1521) Southern California Edison Atm: N. Pinsky P.O. Box 800 . 2244 Walnut Grove Ave., Rm 418 Rosemead, CA 91770 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: D. T. Ton EE-11 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Department of Energy Attn: J. Galdo EE-10 FORSTL Washington, DC 20585 Queensland Department of Mines and Energy Attn: N. Lindsay Senior Project Officer Energy Planning Division GPO Box 194 Brisbane 4001, Qid. Australia Utility Power Group Attn: Mike Stern 9410-G DeSoto Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91311-4947 Amber Gray-Fenner 7204 Marigot Rd. NW Albuquerque, NM 87120 ABB Power T&D Company, Inc. Attn: H. Weinerich 1460 Livingston Avenue North Brunswick, New Jersey MS-0613, MS-0614, MS-0613, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0613, G. Corey (1525) G.P. Rodriguez, (1523) I. Francis (1525) J.T. Crow (1523) T. Unkelhaeuser (1523) D. Mitchell (1522) K. Grothaus (1523) N. Clark (1525) MS-0613 R. Jungst (1521) MS-0704, MS-0708, MS-0752, MS-0753, MS-0753, MS-0753, MS-0753, MS-1193, MS-0614, MS-0537, MS-0613, MS-9403, MS-0613, MS-0619, MS-0899, MS-9018, P.C. Klimas (6201) H. Dodd (6214) M. Tatro (6219) C. Cameron (6218) R. Bonn (6218) T. Hund (6218) W. Bower (6218) D. Rovang (9531) A Jimenez (1523) S. Atcitty (2314) J.D. Guillen (1525) Jim Wang (8713) P. Butler (1525) (20) Review & Approval Desk For DOE/OSTI (12690) (2) Technical Library (4916) (2) Central Technical Files (8940-2)