Chapter Four
PLANNING AND OPERATIONS
4.0 INTRODUCTION
Electric utility planning and operations cover a wide range of utility
functions from the forecast of demand and energy requirements to the
delivery of service to the customer. The effectiveness of this process
depends on a range of factors from service territory characteristics to
power supply alternatives to development and management of facilities. How
well these tasks are accomplished is reflected in electric rates,
reliability, quality of service, environmental impacts and work force
issues.
The following chapter summarizes key issues and comparative measures
related to planning and operations for the Nebraska systems. It is divided
into seven sections: Electric Facilities; Reliability; Integrated Resource
Planning; Environmental Issues; Technology Development; Workforce; and
System Efficiency. While each of the sections contains descriptive
information and key comparative data, the last section provides a series
of comparative measures on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nebraska systems in both regional and national contexts.
4.1 ELECTRIC FACILITIES
Nebraska’s electric facilities are individually-owned or
jointly-owned by groups of the 171 wholesale and retail entities operating
within the state. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, the electric utility
industry is one of the most capital intensive operations in the United
States. Electric systems in Nebraska in 1995 had a gross investment of
more than $5.6 billion. This breaks down into $2.8 billion for generation
facilities, $800 million in transmission facilities, $1.5 billion in
distribution facilities and $454 million in general plant. Other
non-classified categories of investment and construction-work-in-progress
brings the total to nearly $6.2 billion.1
As the largest systems in the state, NPPD, OPPD and LES own many of the
major generating plants. NPPD also owns the bulk of the state’s
transmission lines. The distribution systems are owned by the municipal
systems, public power districts, municipalities and rural cooperatives.
Although the systems are diverse, joint planning for generation,
transmission and distribution has been an area of increasing cooperation
as reflected in the Integrated Resource Plan developed by the Nebraska
Power Association. Each segment of the industry’s facilities is
described below.
4.1.1 Generation
In 1995 Nebraska systems owned a total of 5,512 megawatts of accredited
or demonstrated generating capability. In addition to these facilities,
the Nebraska systems purchased 1,031 megawatts of firm capacity and an
additional 84 megawatts of non-firm capacity (without reserves). The 26
major generating resources are listed on the following table (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1: 1995 NEBRASKA GENERATION
RESOURCES |
PLANT NAME/UNIT NOS. |
UTILITY |
FUEL |
COMMERCIAL OPERATION
DATE |
ACCREDITED CAPACITY |
Gerald Gentleman 1,2 |
NPPD/LES |
Coal |
1979, '82 |
1,278.00 |
North Omaha 1-5 |
OPPD |
Coal |
1954, '57, '59, '63,
'68 |
644.50 |
Nebraska City 1 |
OPPD |
Coal |
1979 |
584.90 |
Sheldon 1,2 |
NPPD/LES |
Coal |
1961, '65 |
225.00 |
Laramie River 1 |
LES, MEAN |
Coal |
1982 |
217.49 |
Wright 6-8 |
Fremont |
Coal |
1958, '63, '77 |
120.00 |
Platte Generating
Station |
Grand Island |
Coal |
1982 |
100.00 |
Whelan Energy Center
1 |
Hastings |
Coal |
1982 |
72.00 |
Ft. Calhoun |
OPPD |
Nuclear |
1973 |
476.00 |
Cooper |
NPPD/LES |
Nuclear |
1974 |
389.00 |
Jones St. 1, 2 Gas
Turbine |
OPPD |
Oil |
1973, '74 |
109.40 |
Sarpy County 1, 2 GT |
OPPD |
Gas/Oil |
1972, '72, '96 |
102.80 |
Burdick 1-3 |
Grand Island |
Gas/Oil |
1957, '63, '71 |
92.80 |
Rokeby 1 Gas Turbine |
LES |
Gas/Oil |
1975 |
72.80 |
Hallam Gas Turbine |
NPPD |
Gas/Oil |
1973 |
50.00 |
Hebron Gas Turbine |
NPPD |
Oil |
1973 |
44.00 |
McCook Gas Turbine |
NPPD |
Oil |
1973 |
49.00 |
North Denver 4,5 |
Hastings |
Gas/Oil |
1957, '67 |
33.00 |
8th & J St. Gas
Turbine |
LES |
Gas/Oil |
1972 |
29.40 |
Henry 1 Gas Turbine |
Hastings |
Gas/Oil |
1972 |
18.00 |
Burdick Gas Turbine |
Grand Island |
Gas/Oil |
1968 |
14.80 |
WAPA Power Purchase |
WAPA/Multiple |
Water |
Multiple |
910.56 |
Johnson 1 1-2,
Johnson 2, Jeffrey 1-2 |
CNPPID/NPPD |
Water |
1940 |
54.00 |
Columbus Monroe
1,2,3 |
Loup/NPPD |
Water |
1936 |
40.00 |
Kingsley |
CNPPID/NPPD |
Water |
1984 |
38.00 |
North Platte 1,2 |
NPPD |
Water |
1935 |
24.00 |
SUBTOTAL |
|
|
|
5,789.45 |
Smaller Nebraska
Plants |
Various |
Primarily N. Gas/Oil |
Various |
244.27 |
TOTAL |
|
|
|
6,033.72 |
NOTE: The Nebraska resource list above includes the
Western Area Power Administration hydro and the Laramie River Station
purchases from out-of-state and excludes a one-half capacity output sale
of Cooper to an out-of-state utility. The list does not include the firm
sale from Basin to Tri-State for Western Nebraska Rural Electric Systems.
In 1996, that amount was 186 MW. It also excludes the 1996 accredited
capacity of Sarpy County Unit #3 Gas Turbine (105.40 MW) and Gentleman
Full Capacity Utilization. It also does not include various shorter term
sales of capacity that will end prior in the time that capacity is needed
to serve Nebraska customers.
There are three general categories of generating plants: baseload
-- which are used on a nearly constant basis because of their low energy
cost and operating efficiencies; intermediate -- which usually
have moderate energy cost and operating efficiencies combined with the
capability to go on and off line relatively quickly; and peaking
plants -- which have the most rapid start-up and shut-down capability and
are the highest energy cost plants. The costs of plant operation are tied
not only to the design and capability of the plant, but also to fuel type.
4.1.1.1 Fuels and Fuel Mix
Coal is the dominant fuel source in Nebraska, MAPP and the nation,
whether measured on a capacity or energy basis. Because coal and nuclear
fuels have low energy costs they are used as baseload units and their
energy shares are greater than their capacity shares (due to being run
more frequently). Conversely, gas/oil fuels have higher energy costs and
are usually used for either intermediate or peak load and emergency
situations such that gas/oil energy shares are lower than their respective
capacity shares. Hydro plants are geography-specific and typically have
similar capacity and energy shares, except for the hydro purchase from
Western Area Power Administration, which has a peaking portion to it.
Nebraska’s purchase of hydropower from WAPA (W) and Nebraska’s in
state hydro plants (N) are shown separately in the following charts.
Chart C4-1 -- 1995 Power Plant Fuel Diversity on
Demonstrated MW Capacity Basis
Generally, Nebraska’s fuel mix is representative of that in MAPP and
the nation. One very noticeable difference is the small amount of natural
gas/oil fired generation (zero to 1 percent) whereas the nation as a whole
produces 12 percent of its power supply from these fuels. Small
oil-and-gas fired diesel power plants in Nebraska have operating
capability, but are not run very often
It is important to have power generation sources that utilize a mix of
fuel types to minimize risk of price fluctuations and availability. Chart
C4-1 indicates Nebraska’s diversity by demonstrated megawatts (MW) of
capacity. Chart C4-2 shows fuel diversity in terms of energy-actual hours
of operation measured in gigawatt hours (GWh).
Chart C4-2 -- 1995 Power Plant Fuel Diversity on
Net Energy GWh Basis
4.1.1.2 Plant Factor
The relative status of Nebraska power plants can be measured by
comparing Nebraska’s generation resources to resources in the MAPP
region and to the nation’s resources. The measure of Plant Factor as
shown in Table 4-2 yields a comparison of how much a plant operates
compared to maximum output operation and is generally a function of its
efficiency compared to other types of plants.
Table 4-2: NET CAPACITY FACTOR - 1995
(in percent) |
FUEL |
NEB |
MAPP |
USA |
Coal |
60% |
61% |
61% |
Nuclear |
72% |
82% |
77% |
Hydro* |
33% - W
47% - N |
42% |
37% |
Gas/Oil |
1% |
4% |
21% |
TOTAL |
48% |
52% |
50% |
*For Nebraska, Hydro values are separated into Western
Area Power Administration (W) and Nebraska generation (N).
4.1.1.3 Power Plant Production Cost
Power Plant Production Cost includes two components: (1) Fuel cost and
(2) the Operating (less fuel) and Maintenance expenses. Fuel costs
generally make up two-thirds of production costs. Table 4-3 shows that
Nebraska plants generally compare favorably with plants in both the MAPP
region and the nation as a whole. Proximity to coal fields contributes to
the state’s lower production costs. Nebraska’s higher nuclear plant
costs are due in part to the design of a single unit rather than multiple
unit plant.
Table 4-3: POWER PLANT PRODUCTION
COST - 1995 (cents/kWh) |
FUEL |
NEB |
MAPP |
USA |
Coal |
1.28 |
1.55 |
1.91 |
Nuclear |
3.02 |
2.08 |
2.00 |
Hydro* |
0.33 - W
0.79 - N |
0.38 |
0.37 |
Gas/Oil |
4.73 |
5.01 |
2.88 |
TOTAL |
1.56 |
1.59 |
1.94 |
*For Nebraska, Hydro values are separated into Western
Area Power Administration (W) and Nebraska generation (N).
4.1.1.4 Purchased Power Costs and Wholesale Rates
Purchased power costs and wholesale rates reflect the cost of power for
Nebraska distribution systems acquired from generating agencies located
primarily in Nebraska. Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is also a
partial requirements wholesaler to a number of Nebraska utilities whose
1995 firm and non-firm average cost to Nebraska was 1.90 cents/kWh.)
At the wholesale level, two 1995 surveys indicated that Nebraska
wholesale firm rates compared favorably with regional and national data.
The first (shown in Table 4-4) was a National Rural Utilities Cooperative
Finance Corporation (CFC) survey involving only rural systems purchasing
at wholesale which revealed Nebraska 14 percent below regional wholesale
rates and 19 percent below national. The second (shown in Table 4-5) was
an Edison Electric Institute (EEI) comparison for investor owned utilities
for resale. The Nebraska average was 21 percent below the January national
cost and 11 percent below the July national cost.
Table 4-4: AVERAGE COST PER
KILOWATT-HOUR PURCHASED - 1995 (845 participants in CFC survey) |
1995 Median Cents/kWh |
Nebraska
Neighboring States
Other States |
3.57
4.17
4.41 |
Source: National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance
Corporation
Table 4-5: AVERAGE CENTS PER
KILOWATT-HOUR FOR 10,000 kW/5,000,000 kWh AVERAGE MONTHLY LOAD
(from EEI survey for resale service) |
|
January |
July |
Investor-owned |
6.85 |
6.87 |
New England Region |
5.97 |
6.96 |
Mid-Atlantic Region |
3.94 |
3.91 |
East North Central |
3.75 |
3.89 |
West North Central |
4.25 |
4.28 |
East South Central |
3.31 |
3.30 |
West South Central |
3.56 |
3.71 |
Mountain Region |
4.18 |
4.27 |
Pacific Region |
4.27 |
5.14 |
Average USA |
4.29 |
4.43 |
Nebraska |
3.38 |
3.96 |
Source: Edison Electric Institute
4.1.2 Transmission and Subtransmission
The existing high voltage (345kV, 230kV, 161kV and 115kV) transmission
network in Nebraska consists of more than 6,200 miles of transmission
lines with an investment cost of about $597,050,000. These transmission
facilities are interconnected with regional facilities in surrounding
states for purposes of reliability and transfer of power and energy. The
Nebraska high voltage transmission network is split into two distinct
regions: the eastern region and the western region. Presently, the split
between these two regions involves the transmission systems on either side
of the Grand Island/Hastings area. The eastern Nebraska region is
inherently secure and stable because typically 80 percent of the entire
state’s load resides in the eastern region. (Stability increases when
load or demand and generation are well-matched.) The western Nebraska
region is on the western edge of the Eastern Interconnected System of the
United States and exhibits completely different operational
characteristics. Sparse population results in low demand and a large
generation/load mismatch in this area. There is also a heavy reliance on
the bulk transmission system for delivery of generation from this area to
the state’s load centers in eastern Nebraska.2
Nebraska is interconnected with three of the nine North American
Electric Reliability Council regions. Interconnections exist with MAPP
thorough Iowa and South Dakota and allow transactions with the 70 MAPP
members; Western Nebraska interconnections link the state through Wyoming
to the Western Systems Coordinating Council grid; and interconnections
through Kansas and Missouri link the Nebraska systems to the Southwest
Power Pool.
Geographical relationships between load and generation and the
transactions of regional energy markets will impact future transmission
limitations or "bottlenecks" in Nebraska. Six critical
transmission interfaces have been identified in Nebraska representing
constrained paths: Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) Eastflow Stability
Interface; W. Nebraska -- W. Kansas Transmission Interface; Grand Island
-- Lincoln Area Transmission Interface; Cooper Southflow Transmission
Interface; Fort Calhoun -- West Omaha Transmission Interface; Sub 3459 --
Sub 3456 Transmission Interface (Omaha area). The regional utilities have
developed operating procedures and curtailment procedures to address high
utilization of these constrained paths. Increases in firm transmission
capacity usage on these interfaces may require the addition of new high
voltage facilities.3 Future power flows through these paths
must be monitored closely.
The existing (34.5kV and 69kV) subtransmission facilities of the State
of Nebraska consist of more than 6,600 miles of lines with an investment
cost of about $201,475,000. The subtransmission system is normally a
direct step down from the 161kV and 115kV high voltage transmission
systems. Since the 1960s, state law has required open access to
transmission above 34.5kV to support competition at the wholesale level.4
The construction of the subtransmission system is expected to continue
as new and existing customers increase load demands and facilities are
rebuilt to maintain or enhance reliability. An increase in competitive
power purchases could also increase the need to undertake additional
transmission and subtransmission construction.
4.1.3 Distribution
Distribution facilities are that part of the electrical system that
delivers power and energy directly to the ultimate customer. They include:
distribution substations, distribution lines, associated equipment, points
of transformation to utilization voltages and meters.
Distribution substations step down the voltage from transmission or
subtransmission levels to voltage levels suitable for distribution. The
distribution lines that carry energy from the distribution substations to
local load areas are called "main" or "primary"
feeders and generally operate in Nebraska between 2.4 kilovolt and 25.0
kilovolt levels, depending upon design requirements. Numerous taps or
lateral Lines are attached to main feeder lines as required to distribute
electricity throughout the service area. "Tie lines" are often
constructed between feeder lines to provide backup energy sources for load
areas in the event of damage to a feeder fine due to severe weather or
other incidents.
Voltage is usually stepped down one more time from the distribution
level to the utilization level by line transformers installed near
customer load points. Utilization voltages vary considerably in level and
configuration. Common household service is provided at 120/240 volts,
single phase. Many small commercial consumers and some farms take service
at 120/208, 120/240 or 277/480 volts, three phase. Larger commercial or
industrial customers sometimes take delivery at 2,400 to 15,000 volts,
three phase.
Nebraska utilities have reported more than 85,000 pole/circuit miles of
primary distribution lines in operation in 1995 and more than $1.5 billion
in investment. As might be expected, more than 75 percent of the
distribution line miles in operation are in rural areas of Nebraska.5
4.2 RELIABILITY
Because electricity is so integral to customers’ residences,
businesses and factories, it is imperative that electric service be
reliable. Reliability is necessary at all levels in the production and
delivery of electric energy. Power flows are very dynamic from hour to
hour depending on factors such as: what generating plants are running at
what output level, what transmission fines are in or out of service, what
load levels are in the different geographic areas and what level of firm
or non-firm sales are being conducted by others on the grid.
4.2.1 Generation Adequacy
At the generation level, a key reliability measurement is the adequacy
of generation. The percentage of generation reserves is a key factor. The
Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) requires utility members to meet
planning reserve requirements of at least 15 percent of firm load
obligations. The percent reserve margins, calculated using the North
American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) methodology (percent of
generation) for the United States, MAPP and Nebraska for 1996 and forecast
for 2005 is as follows:
Table 4-6: RESERVE CAPACITY |
|
1996 |
2005 |
United States |
18.9% |
13.4% |
MAPP USA |
15.9% |
3.3% |
Nebraska |
17.7% |
7.5 to 17.6% |
Data Sources: North American Electric Reliability
Council Assessment 1996-2005, October 1996;
also NPA Statewide Integrated Planning Coordination Report, 1996, Appendix
E
According to current forecasts, MAPP will have insufficient reserve
margins in 2005 unless additional units are added. The extent of reserves
in Nebraska depends upon the status of NPPD’s Cooper Nuclear Station. By
2004, the MidAmerican (Iowa) and LES purchase contracts expire with
renewal options. Whether Cooper continues to operate to 2014 when the
operating license expires will be a key factor in a statewide generation
reserves adequacy. Depending upon the Cooper scenario, a statewide deficit
could occur as early as 2005 or as late as 2010. The statewide IRP Report
(1997-2016) states that in 2005 the statewide generation surplus/deficit
could range from 548 MW surplus to 226 MW deficit depending on the Cooper
decision. For the three largest utilities, NPPD’s 2005 range could vary
from 558 MW surplus to 216 MW deficit; LES’ 2005 range from 3 MW deficit
to 100 MW deficit; OPPD is forecast to have a 46 MW surplus in 2005.6
However, each individual utility is responsible to meet its generation and
reserve requirements.
Planning and coordination of generation are likely to be drastically
altered in a competitive environment and reserves and firmness of capacity
could be determined by price rather than policy.
4.2.2 Transmission Adequacy and Security
Reliability is also determined by the adequacy and security of the
interconnected bulk transmission system. The North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC) was established in 1968 to coordinate and
promote the reliability of the generation and transmission systems.7
MAPP, a NERC regional area operating in the Eastern Interconnection, is a
consortium of regional utilities (including major Nebraska systems) and
other parties. It serves four basic functions: 1) a regional reliability
council, responsible for bulk system reliability; 2) a regional
transmission group, responsible for facilitating access to the
transmission system; 3) a wholesale power and energy market, and; 4) a
generation reserve sharing pool.8
The 1996 implementation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Orders 888 and 889 has created an "open access" transmission
system and wholesale power market in MAPP and the nation. The existing
regional transmission system was constructed to deliver electricity from
the generation to the load center. Transmission interconnections
facilitate reserve sharing, stability, frequency control and economic
interchange. In a competitive environment with the requirement to transfer
larger amounts of power and energy, reliability will be dependent on the
ability of the transmission system to evolve and expand. Nebraska
transmission systems do meet NERC/MAPP standards and are considered
reliable, but the competitive issues will be an ongoing factor both in
Nebraska and the region.
4.2.3 Distribution Adequacy and Security
The distribution delivery level is where most outage events occur
involving loss of customer load. A widely accepted measure for a
reliability comparison is the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI).
While consistently defined distribution reliability data is not readily
available on both a national and state basis (many utilities do not
calculate the measure), 34 Nebraska systems do report the data. The
Nebraska SAIDI data was tabulated in two components; rural systems
involving 31 rural utilities and three other utilities (OPPD, NPPD and
LES). Nebraska utilities’ reliability measure compares favorably to the
limited national data available.
National data indicates that during the 1991-1994 period public power
systems experienced an average of 77.5 minutes of outage per customer in
SAIDI measurement.9 Investor-owned utilities reported 163.2
minutes for the same period and measured.10 National rural
electric systems reported a median of 208.8 minutes in 1995.11
The 34 Nebraska systems reporting data indicated and average of 166
minutes of outage per customer (SAIDI) for rural electric systems during
1995 and 58.6 minutes for the three public power systems.12 (See
Chart C4-3)
Chart C4-3
(OPPD, NPPD, LES = 58.6; All Rurals = 166.5)
Source: NPA LR455 Survey - 34 respondents (1995 data)
4.3 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING
For Nebraska, Integrated Resource Planning fills an important role in
developing a coordinated approach to future power needs.13 An
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is a least-cost plan of demand-side and
supply-side power resources that meets utility objectives and customer
needs. IRPs are developed by individual utilities and a summary is
developed and coordinated by the Nebraska Power Association. The principal
objective of the coordination effort is for participating utilities to
share information and ideas concerning future needs and capabilities of
the Nebraska power industry and to determine how to best serve those
needs. This cooperative effort helps avoid the duplication of facilities
and economizes the cost of new projects where joint participation would
result in better service to Nebraskans at lower cost. Areas specifically
addressed include existing and projected load and generation capability,
energy conservation and efficiency options, opportunities for joint
projects, renewable energy generation update, transmission issues and
outlook and environmental considerations.14
For the 20-year period 1997 through 2016, statewide peak demands are
projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent per year;
rising from 5,204 MW to 6,642 MW. The individual utility projections range
from 0.3 to 2.6 percent with urban areas typically growing at higher rates
than rural. The statewide peak growth has been reduced from the 1986 NPA
Report of 2.1 and 1.7 percent in the 1991 report.
The system peak demand in any year is important because it governs how
much resource capacity must be provided by the utility to satisfy its
reliability obligations to the region and ultimately to the customers.
This capability obligation to be planned and provided for is the system
peak demand plus required reserves, which are essentially 15 percent
additional to system peak demand. Energy requirements are also critical to
integrated resource planning because they partially govern what type of
resources will be most cost-effective.
Resources include both demand-side and supply-side resources. However,
existing demand-side resources and their ongoing effects are normally
netted out of forecasted load as part of both the demand and energy
forecasting processes. If the utility is deficit by not having provided
enough resource capability to cover its peak obligation, then it must
purchase capacity at a "penalty" price from the other utilities
in the region according to established reliability agreements. The 1996
Statewide IRP Report describes likely future demand-and supply-side
resource options.
Typically, the lead time needed from initial planning to on-line
operation ranges from five to eight years for a large coal-fired power
plant; two to three years for a combustion turbine unit; three to five
years for a gas combined cycle unit; and two to three years for a
utility-sized wind facility. There are no nuclear plants now in the
planning or construction stages and the lead time, even with streamlined
siting and licensing, is expected to be much longer than for a coal plant.
Purchase power options are traded on a daily basis for short term
contracts, but can require a period ranging from a few months to two years
for negotiation of long-term contracts. Such purchased generating capacity
may not always be available or deliverable due to transmission
constraints. As we approach an era of potential uncertainty concerning
customer demand due to the mergence of retail competition, the flexibility
and reduced risk of short lead time units such as wind and gas combined
cycle can become an important consideration. However, power planners
acknowledge when all factors are taken into consideration, low risk
options, even those with lower initial capital cost, may not offer the
best long-term economic advantage.
On the demand side, expansions of the current load management,
interruptible and other rate options useful for conservation purposes and
efficient use of facilities are expected. There are many conservation,
demand-side management and renewable energy projects and activities that
Nebraska electric utilities are conducting or in which they are otherwise
engaged. (See sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5 for further information.) The
current best estimate of Demand Side Management (DSM) activities in
Nebraska is approximately 326 MW of summer peak load reduction (end use
customer level).15 The 1996 IRP Coordination Report shows the
statewide surplus of available capacity over firm obligations dropping
below 400 MW in 1998. Without existing DSM Programs, the 1998 surplus
would likely be a deficit, considering both the losses and the reserve
requirements that would result if DSM resources were not utilized.
Nebraska’s statewide forecast, which includes the DSM effects and
supply side resource capability changes, is illustrated in Graph C4-4. The
graph shows how loads and capability change and in which year deficits for
the state could occur. This graph represents combined load and capability;
every individual utility could have a different deficit year than those
demonstrated. Graph C4-4 portrays three Cooper Nuclear Station scenarios.
The first shows Cooper continuing to operate through its operating license
of January 2014 and contract sales to MidAmerican ending in 2004 and is
labeled "Original Capability" because this scenario was the
basis for the original load and capability tables filed with the Nebraska
PRB. In this scenario, the capacity for Cooper is utilized by NPPD after
the contracts expire and the statewide deficit occurs in 2010. A second
scenario, "Alt. 1 Capability," shows a situation in which Cooper
Nuclear Station is retired after the MidAmerican contract expires, In this
second scenario, the statewide deficit occurs in 2005. A third "Alt.
2 Capability" scenario shows conditions in which contracts continue
through the operating permit of Cooper which ends January 18, 2014. In
this third scenario, the statewide deficit year is 2008. Decisions
regarding Cooper have not been made by NPPD, or power purchasers LES and
MidAmerican.16
CHART C4-4
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental issues offer both indirect and direct financial impacts
on utility operations and planning. With the bulk of the state’s power
supply fueled by coal, clean air issues have a special significance. Other
closely followed issues include low-level nuclear waste, hydro relicensing
and rising interest in wind generation and other forms of renewable
energy.
4.4.1 Clean Air
The Clean Air Act (CAA), along with any forthcoming requirements, will
continue to affect current as well as future electric generation in
Nebraska.17 Nebraska generation currently operates at or near
capacity levels. Any new generation in Nebraska is not expected to
significantly increase existing emissions because new facilities will be
required to operate under much tighter emission limits than existing
units.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set the minimum
acceptable air quality concentrations for six principal pollutants: carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM-10) and
sulfur dioxide. These standards are health-based and require that states
develop and implement plans to achieve attainment over a period of years.
They can result in requirements for utilities and other industries to
adopt the best available control technology for a pollutant irrespective
of cost. The CAA requires that these standards be reviewed every five
years to assure that the most recent data and techniques are used.
Emission requirements are implemented through air permits. Based upon
ambient air quality monitoring data areas are designated as either
"attainment" or "nonattainment" depending upon whether
they met the primary NAAQS over a three-year period. Nonattainment areas
are typically found in densely populated urban areas. Under current
standards, Nebraska measures up relatively well in meeting acceptable
concentrations for the six principal pollutants.
Lead
Douglas County has been the only non-attainment area (for lead pollution
only). The industrial source of this pollution has ceased operation.
However, new federal standards are being considered and it is currently
unknown if these standards will affect Nebraska utilities.
Nitrogen Oxides
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data for 1995
emissions, the average NOx rate for utilities in Nebraska was
0.53 lbs/mm BTU. There were 19 states in the contiguous 48 states which
had state averages greater than Nebraska, including Iowa, Colorado,
Minnesota, Missouri and North Dakota.18 Title IV of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require NOx
emissions from electric generating facilities, including those in
Nebraska, to be further reduced prior to or beginning in 2000.
Ozone
All of Nebraska currently meets all NAAQS for ozone. The Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) was created by the 1990 CAAA to develop strategies for
achieving the NAAQS in a 12-state "Ozone Transport Region" from
Virginia to Maine. In response to the OTC, the EPA established the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) in 1995. OTAG was made up of 37 states
in the East and Midwest, including Nebraska. OTAG’s objective was
"to comprehensively assess the transport of ozone and ozone-forming
pollutants (precursors) impacting nonattainment areas," and to
recommend measures to the EPA that would result in reduced levels of
transported ozone and ozone precursors.19
Nebraska argued that it should not be part of the OTAG process based on
the following: state generated emissions of NOx are less than 1
percent of the total emissions of the OTAG states; Nebraska is far removed
geographically from any nonattainment area; and the upper level wind
direction throughout the ozone producing season (summer) is not conducive
to the transport of ozone or its precursors from Nebraska to nonattainment
areas. There were 28 states out of the 37-state OTAG region which had
higher state NOx emission totals in the OTAG
database. For volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, there were 29
states out of the 37-state OTAG Region which had higher total emissions.
Based upon these facts, the NPA passed a motion expressing their concerns
that expensive emission control requirements might be imposed that would
be neither warranted nor cost-effective.
OTAG's final recommendation to the EPA was that Nebraska, along with 21
other states and portions of states, need not install OTAG-related
control, but rather periodically review its emissions and the impact of
increases on downwind nonattainment areas. As appropriate, steps such as
control measures are to be taken to reduce such impacts. The EPA adopted
this recommendation.
Sulphur Dioxide
The Acid Rain program established order Title IV of the 1990 CAAA calls
for major reductions of SO2 and NOx,
the pollutants that cause acid rain, while establishing a new market-based
approach to environmental protection, The program includes a permanent cap
on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted by
electric utilities nationwide, a ten-million-ton per year reduction from
1980 levels.20 The SO2 goal will be
accomplished in a three-phased approach. The first phase, which became
enforceable in 1995, affected emissions from 263 power plants that were
mostly the highest emitting and largest units. These units were located in
21 eastern and midwestern states including units in Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota and Missouri. There were also 182 units which voluntarily
participated in Phase I of the program which increased the total Phase I
units to 445. The SO2 cap for these Phase I units
was 8.7 million tons. Phase II of this program begins in 2000 and affects
more than 2000 fossil fuel-fired utility units, including 21 units in
Nebraska.
Most Nebraska utilities project that they will have an adequate supply
of allowances to cover SO2 emissions through the
year 2010. This supply of allowances will include original allocated
allowances, banked allowances which can be carried forward for use in
subsequent years. Before 2010, many utilities in the state will begin to
evaluate the need to purchase additional allowances or perhaps pursue
other emission reduction strategies. In 1995, Nebraska utilities emitted
65,254 tons of SO2 which was 0.55 percent of the
national total attributed to utilities. Out of the 48 contiguous states,
32 states had greater SO2 emissions in 1995,
including Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, North
Dakota and Missouri.21
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Title III of the 1990 CAAA was established to further reduce the risks to
the public health and environment attributable to emissions of Hazardous
Air Pollutants (HAPs). The HAPs program identifies all major emission
sources for the 189 listed HAPs and then sets strict technology based
performance standards to control emissions, regardless of the plant’s
geographical location or age. These technology based standards are
applicable to both new and existing units for the control of HAPs.
Particulate removal equipment utilized at utility power plants in Nebraska
produces significant control of HAPs, except for mercury which occurs
predominantly in gaseous form. There are many uncertainties with existing
control technology for mercury and, if required, these technologies would
be very expensive.22
Carbon Dioxide
There has been considerable debate on whether increasing atmospheric
concentrations of green house gases due to anthropogenic sources is
causing significant long-term changes in global weather and climate.
Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane, nitrous oxide (N20) and chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), trap the sun’s heat within the atmosphere and thus increase the
temperature. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas produced
by human activities.23 Man is significantly increasing CO2
levels by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. While
there is controversy over how much the climate is being affected; how fast
the warming will be; and how serious the consequences; an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report in 1996 that
noted, while there is great uncertainty in quantifying the human influence
on climate, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible
human influence on global climate.24 The more rapid the rate of
warming, the greater the environmental impacts. Median level predictions
for such warming indicates there could be significant impacts by the
middle of the coming century.*25
(*This information does not imply an endorsement of any
given position.)
Currently there are no economical technologies available to reduce CO2
from the combustion of fossil fuel at power plants. The current and future
cost of air emissions could put a premium on power sources such as hydro,
wind, solar and nuclear, which do not emit carbon dioxide. However, many
obstacles exist to utilization of these technologies.
In 1995, the voluntary Climate Challenge Program noted 108 reports (96
from electric utilities) including NPPD, OPPD and the City of Wayne. In
1995, utilities in Nebraska emitted 20,325,120 tons of CO2,
which was .90 percent of the national total attributed to utilities; 32
states out of the 48 contiguous states had higher CO2
emissions, including Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Wyoming and Missouri.26
Particulate Matter
In regard to particulate matter (PM) -- fine particles emitted during
activities such as industrial combustion -- there are currently no
nonattainment areas in Nebraska with a standard of PM-10 (airborne solid
or liquid particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less). However, in
December 1996, the EPA proposed a new standard for PM-2.5 to address
possible health problems caused by finer particles. Questions of health
and other impacts are yet to be resolved. If PM-2.5 standards are adopted,
the EPA anticipates the number of nonattainment areas in the county to
increase significantly. In Nebraska, six counties (Buffalo, Cass, Dawson,
Douglas, Lancaster and Otoe) which currently meet the NAAQS for PM- 10
would be classified as nonattainment areas for PM-2.5.27 This
would require installation of emission control equipment with associated
costs that could affect electric rates and the operation of certain
generating plants.
4.4.2 Radioactive Waste
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985 (the 1985
Act) requires each state to be responsible for providing for the
availability of capacity for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes
generated within its borders. The 1985 Act encourages states to enter into
interstate compacts. Pursuant to the 1985 Act, Nebraska has entered into
the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact with the states
of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. The Compact chose Nebraska as
the host state with Boyd County selected as the regional disposal facility
location. The developer estimates that the pre-operational cost of the
facility will be approximately $154 million. The state has issued draft
reports and a public process is proceeding. A final decision is not
expected before the end of 1999.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides the framework for the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste generated
by electric utilities. The act requires that the DOE establish fees to
cover all costs associated with the program and that DOE accept title,
transportation and disposal of the fuel. NPPD and OPPD together have paid
approximately $150 million in fees. DOE has indicated it will not be able
to meet its 1998 statutory and contractual obligation to begin disposing
of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE is currently evaluating the suitability of
a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The utilities’ contracts require the
Federal Government to begin to accept high level nuclear waste by January
31, 1998. Thirty-seven (37) states and regulatory commissions, including
Nebraska, and 25 utilities filed suit against DOE in June 1994 to gain
clarification on the issue of spent fuel acceptance. Nebraska utilities
currently have sufficient on-site storage for spent fuel at Cooper Nuclear
Station and Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station until 2004 and 2007, respectively.
4.4.3 Hydro Relicensing
Approximately 18 percent of the state’s generating and purchase
rapacity and 13 percent of energy generated and purchased in 1995 came
from renewable hydro resources. Currently, three Nebraska power districts
operate hydropower projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for licensing non-federal
hydropower projects. Loup River Public Power District’s project on the
Loup Canal with hydro plants at Columbus and Monroe was relicensed in 1984
for a period of 30 years. The Central Nebraska Public Power &
Irrigation District (Central) and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
are currently in the 13th year of obtaining new long-term licenses from
FERC for their projects. The projects are located along the North and
South Platte Rivers and Platte Rivers in west central Nebraska.
The relicensing/licensing requirements for hydro projects have changed
substantially since the projects were originally licensed. Modifications
to the Federal Power Act and other significant requirements - the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Water Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA)
- have added significant requirements to a FERC license. ECPA, in
particular, instructs FERC to give equal consideration to the hydropower
and non-hydropower benefits of a project. The ESA prohibits federal
agencies from taking any action (including granting of a federal license)
that would further harm a threatened or endangered species and their
designated critical habitats. Recently, a Cooperative Agreement has been
signed by the states of Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming and the U.S.
Department of Interior on a recovery program for endangered species in the
Platte River Basin. This agreement and a subsequent program will address
concerns related to wildlife and habitat for all projects in the Platte
River Basin.
FERC also must address fish and wildlife recommendations related to
non-endangered species made by the USFWS and Nebraska Game & Parks
Commission (NGPC) before issuing a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Following issuance of the FEIS, FERC can issue new licenses to Central and
NPPD. There is not a firm schedule for completing this process. However,
FERC will likely complete relicensing in mid-1998; although, the process
may take longer, FERC has indicated the new licenses would be for a term
of 40 years. Upon license issuance, Central and NPPD must decide if they
will accept the new licenses and operate the projects with the conditions
included in the licenses. Other parties to the licensing process must also
decide whether or not the licenses should be contested. (Note: Central and
NPPD were issued new FERC licenses in 1998.)
4.4.4 Conservation and Demand Side Management Programs
Nebraska electric utilities have been involved in a range energy
conservation projects that increase efficiency of electric utility
operations, These are known as Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs that
target energy savings through direct control measures, technological
improvements or revisions in billing practices.
DSM programs in the state generally fall into three major load shaping
categories: load shifting, peak clipping and strategic conservation.
Irrigation load control is categorized as load shifting and accounts for
the greatest majority of demand reductions. (A small amount of ice storage
cooling is also included as load shifting). Direct control of irrigation
wells accounts for 66 percent of demand reductions. Time-of-use irrigation
rates accounts for 1 percent. Peak clipping programs include interruptible
customers (12 percent of demand reductions), air conditioner load control
(7 percent), water heater controls (4 percent) and other methods (6
percent), such as dual fuel, municipal water pumping, automated energy
management and curtailable loads. As part of these customer-oriented
strategic conservation options, Nebraska utilities offer energy audits,
provide information on energy conservation and promote technologies such
as electric heat pumps that help balance seasonal peaks in electric loads.
Conservation via high-efficiency air conditioners and heat pumps accounts
for 4 percent of demand reductions.
As previously noted, the current best estimate of DSM activities in
Nebraska is approximately 326 MW of peak load reduction (end use customer
level). Economic activity is also produced by these energy savings. As DSM
programs have assumed an increasingly important role in providing
economically priced electricity to Nebraska customers during the last
several years, Nebraskans have invested more than $16,000,000 in equipment
necessary to employ peak clipping and load shifting DSM strategies.28
Generally, Nebraska utilities have aggressively pursued strategies
that help reduce daily and seasonal peaks (Demand-Side Management) where
economic return is the highest, but have not been as aggressive in
providing consumer conservation programs as an alternative to generation
due to the relatively lower direct economic return. Of the various
customer-oriented conservation programs, Nebraska’s utilities have
reported the following:29
Table 4-7: ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS |
Reporting
Utilities |
Subject |
58 |
Energy audits for customers |
99 |
Technical assistance to customers
for energy utilization and efficiency |
93 |
Customer power factor improvements |
9 |
Efficient air conditioning
utilization |
7 |
Efficient home lighting and
retrofits |
44 |
Energy efficient home program |
3 |
Efficient appliance utilization |
5 |
Efficient compact fluorescent
lighting |
5 |
District systems for heating and
cooling |
106 |
Least cost planning in buying
decisions |
2 |
Air conditioning/heat pump
maintenance efficiency follow up |
73 |
Shade tree promotion |
2 |
Photovoltaic application |
1 |
Renewable demonstration |
1 |
Cogeneration |
57 |
Support higher appliance efficiency
standards |
2 |
Support higher building codes for
energy efficiency |
2 |
Efficient variable frequency motors
and pumps |
Source: LR 455 Survey
4.4.5 Renewable Energy
In the renewable energy field, contributions to Nebraska energy
production from non-hydro renewable resources have been minimal to date.
As noted in chart C4-1 and C4-2 approximately 18 percent of the state’s
demonstrated capacity and 13 percent of its energy generated is
hydroelectric. Interest in non-hydro renewables has been rising as noted
by several bills submitted to the legislature concerning biomass and wind
power, as well as "green pricing."30
The non-hydro renewable energy generation option receiving the most
attention at this time is wind energy generation. A joint Nebraska wind
project of 1.5 MW is planned for 1998 as part of an Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) project and the Nebraska Power Association is
involved in monitoring wind speed and solar data at eight sites across the
state. The monitoring project is being undertaken with the Nebraska Energy
Office, the Nebraska Industrial Competitiveness Service, Nebraska Citizen
Action and the Union of Concerned Scientists. NPPD and KBR Rural Public
Power District are monitoring wind speed at an additional site as well.
Several utilities are also involved with installing solar powered stock
watering systems.
In addition to this interest and activity, there are four recorded
customer-owned renewable generation plants in Nebraska: two methane-fueled
plants in OPPD’s service area, one methane-fueled plant in Lincoln and
one wind generator in LES’s service area.31 The four plants
total 4.05 MW of renewable generating capacity. This represents about 0.1
percent of the total installed generating capacity of the Nebraska
utilities. In comparison, national averages indicate renewable resources
(excluding hydro) represent approximately 2 percent of all (utility and
non-utility) generating capacity in the United States.32
4.5 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The ability to generate and deliver electricity in a cost-effective,
reliable manner by taking advantage of advances in technology is critical
to maintaining competitive rates, quality of service, customer
satisfaction and environmental compliance. The primary vehicle which
electric utilities in the United States and in Nebraska use to conduct
research and development of new technology is the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI). Created in 1973 by the nation’s electric utilities,
EPRI is one of America’s oldest and largest research consortia with
about 700 utility members. By pooling resources, a wider spectrum of
projects are possible than if each utility was funding research efforts
individually.
Total EPRI funding for research, development and delivery in 1996 was
$240.9 million. Nebraska electric utility members paid a total of
$3,461,368 in 1995 dues. These utilities also have staff members (35) who
serve on various EPRI business unit advisory and governing boards. In
addition, they also contributed $607,410 for state and local research and
$336,756 for other national research in 1995.
Research and development activities by EPRI included many projects. A
few examples include renewable energy, superconductivity, electric and
magnetic field effects, clean coal gasification, fuel cell and acid rain.
Nebraska utilities are involved in utilization or active investigation
of potential use or feasibility of use of many technologies, such as
renewable generation, power quality, advanced metering, high efficiency
HVAC and ground source heat pumps.
4.6 WORK FORCE
The utility work force is the backbone of day-to-day operations and
management.
Nebraska electric utilities reported approximately 6,700 full and
part-time employees for 1995. By employment sector, approximately 36
percent worked in the generation/production function, 46 percent in the
transmission and distribution function and 18 percent in administrative
functions.33
The Nebraska electric utility industry employs a wide spectrum and
diverse mixture of employment classifications. Employment job
classifications are generally categorized as skilled craft (power plant
operators, fine technicians, electricians, etc.), professional (engineers,
accountants, managers, etc.), and administrative/office support
(secretaries, clerks, account specialists, etc.)
The total payroll (1995) of the 49 reporting utilities exceeded $269
million. There are more than 2,000 employees in 11 utilities represented
under a collective bargaining agreement.
Most Nebraska utility employees work under safety policies and
procedures which substantially mirror the OSHA regulations, but of the
Nebraska systems, only rural cooperatives are required to operate under
Federal OSHA requirements. Nebraska electric utilities are subject to the
State Department of Labor regulations on written injury prevention
programs.34 Responding Nebraska utilities showed favorable OSHA
Incident Rates compared to national statistics compiled by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics
Table 4-8: OSHA INCIDENT RATES PER
100 EMPLOYEES |
NATIONAL |
NEBRASKA |
|
TOTAL |
LOST WORK |
TOTAL |
LOST WORK |
1995 |
5.7 |
2.6 |
5.37 |
1.68 |
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995; LR 455 Survey
There has been a national trend toward downsizing of work force among
private investor-owned utilities and large public power systems preparing
for the pressures of competition. An emerging issue for the Nebraska work
force will be the potential impact deregulation and competition might have
on work force size, levels of safety and service quality.
To reinforce the utility labor available during periods of emergency,
the Nebraska Power Association has established a mutual aid agreement
between municipal, public power district and rural cooperative systems
under which impacted utilities can request assistance during natural
disasters. Supplementing that agreement are independent contracts with
arborists for line clearance, contracts with private electricians and
contracts with line technicians.
4.7 SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
The general measure of efficiency and effectiveness of the Nebraska
systems is evident in the state’s average retail electric rate. As noted
in Chapter 2, Nebraska’s average rate in 1995, 5.4 cents/kwh, was the
11th lowest in the nation (tied with Wisconsin). This compares to a U.S.
average rate of 6.9 cents/kwh. The primary factors contributing to this
low rate include the state’s relatively low cost of power produced by
coal and hydro plants, as well as power purchases from WAPA. Also
contributing to the state’s 5.4 cent/kwh average rate is a range of
operational factors.
Nebraska electric systems report engaging in many system efficiency
improvements to enhance their quality and cost performance. Among these
efforts are: use of optimum staffing and re-engineering, employing least
cost planning strategies (life cycle costs), cost-effective out-sourcing
of services, shared services, purchasing low-loss electrical equipment,
optimizing equipment loading, enhanced utilization of technology to
improve reliability and performance, enhanced computer based applications,
implementation of generation station heat rate improvement programs, life
extension and capacity augmentation of electric facilities and advanced
preventive maintenance efforts.35
On both a regional and national comparative basis, Nebraska electric
utilities indicate favorable operating, planning and rate statistical
measures. Statistics gathered on key financial and operating ratios for
Nebraska compared to regional and national averages, are shown in a series
of charts below. The Nebraska statistics are divided into two components,
i.e., Rural Systems and "All Other" systems.
COMPARATIVE OPERATIONAL DATA CHARTS
MN = MEAN or Average; MD = Median or Midpoint
A. Distribution O&M per Customer
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
CFC |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
All others |
$94 MN |
$91 MN
$73 MD |
$72 MN
$68 MD |
-- |
$91 MN
$82 MD |
$66 MN
$68 MD |
Rurals |
$123 MN |
-- |
-- |
$119 MN
$113 MD |
-- |
-- |
Description: This ratio measures the average
distribution expense associated with delivering power and energy to each
retail customer. Distribution costs include labor, supervision,
engineering, materials and supplies used to operate and maintain the
distribution system. Customer density, ovehead versus underground
facilities and level of storm-related expenses can all impact this
measure. O&M expenses do impact reliability.
B. Distribution O&M per Mile (pole/circuit)
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
CFC |
APPA |
All others |
$3,228 MN |
$3,247 MN
$3,431 MD |
-- |
$4,117 MN
$3,780 MD |
Rurals |
$294 MN |
-- |
$354 MN
$313 MD |
-- |
Description: This ratio is similar to the above except
the per unit is pole/circuit mile of line. The ratio is impacted by
customer density, type of distribution construction and level of
storm-related expenses, among others. The significantly lower rural figure
is due to the fewer number of customers per mile of line and the greater
number of line miles.
C. Total O&M (minus power supply) per Customer
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
CFC |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
All others |
$223 MN |
$237 MN
$207 MD |
$287 MN
$251 MD |
-- |
$263 MN
$209 MD |
$279 MN
$270 MD |
Rurals |
$263 MN |
-- |
-- |
$295 MN
$287 MD |
-- |
-- |
Description: This ratio measures on a per customer basis
all O&M expenditures (except power supply - production and purchased
power). It would include transmission, distribution, customer accounting,
customer service and sales plus administrative general expenses. The level
of transmission facilities and customer density both impact this ratio,
among others.
D. Retail Customers Served per Non-Generation Employee
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
CFC |
APPA |
All others |
233 MN |
245 MN
332 MD |
-- |
255 MN
304 MD |
Rurals |
181 MN |
-- |
207 MN
196 MD |
-- |
Description: This ratio calculates the average number of
retail customers served per non-generation employee. Generation employees
are deleted to take into consideration not all utilities produce power,
i.e., some purchase their requirements and would have no generation
employees.
E. Administrative and General Expense per Retail Customer
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
CFC |
APPA |
INVESTOR |
CFC |
All others |
$72 MN |
$94 MN
$83 MD |
$148 MN
$130 MD |
-- |
$108 MN
$72 MD |
$147 MN
$143 MD |
-- |
Rurals |
$99 MN |
-- |
-- |
$123 MN
$119 MD |
-- |
-- |
$94 MD |
Description: A&G expenses are those not allocable to
the cost of power, transmission, distribution, accounting and customer
service. They might include certain administrative salaries, property and
liability insurance, professional fees and expenses not otherwise provided
for elsewhere. It is measured in terms of the average per retail customer
served.
F. Debt Service Coverage (times covered)
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
CFC |
APPA |
CFC |
All others |
1.73 MD |
2.12 MN
2.63 MD |
-- |
2.30 MN
3.26 MD |
-- |
Rurals |
2.45 MD |
-- |
2.47 MN
2.18 MD |
-- |
-- |
Description: The ratio of net revenues available for
debt service to total long-term debt service for the year. The ratio
measures the ability to meet its current long-term obligations. NOTE:
Nebraska rural statistics derived from CFC report for 24 Nebraska rural
systems instead of NPA survey data.
G. Annual Load Factor
|
REGIONAL |
NATIONAL |
GROUP |
NEBRASKA |
APPA |
CFC |
APPA |
CFC |
All others |
49.5% MD |
56.8% MN
55.7% MD |
-- |
55.8% MN
54.5% MD |
-- |
Rurals |
42.7% MD |
-- |
54% MN
52% MD |
-- |
-- |
Description: Ratio of system average demand to system
peak demand.
Discussion on Comparative Operational Data Charts
The seven comparative statistical ratios are defined in two segments:
for "Rural" Nebraska electric system and "All Other"
Nebraska system. The division is to reflect the differences in system
characteristics plus comparative rural utility data is available from
NRUCFC on a regional and limited national basis. The "All Other"
Nebraska category is compared to APPA or investor-owned data where
available. While the description following each measure is fairly
self-explanatory, some additional commentary is warranted.
A&B. Distribution O&M Per Customer and
Distribution O&M Per Mile: The low customer density in Nebraska is a
factor in deviations from the comparative statistics both
nationally/regionally. When measured on per mile of line basis, the
Nebraska statistics look more favorable. There is a direct relationship
between O&M expenses and reliability so performing minimal
distribution O&M is not prudent.
C. Total O&M (minus power supply) Per Customer:
With power supply costs excluded, all other O&M expenses per retail
customer is a useful measure. For all utilities, these would be the costs
for the power delivery "wires" business plus support functions,
including A&G, customer billing, etc. Nebraska comparative statistics
are favorable.
D. Retail Customers Served Per Non-Generation
Employee: If generation employees are deleted to eliminate the difference
between the purchase power utility from the generation utility, this
measure is indicative of the number of retail customers served per
employee. Nebraska statistics are below the national/regional averages.
Customer density is a factor. If utilities haw a relatively low customer
count, but many miles of facilities have to be maintained, this ratio
would be negatively impacted. A transmission utility would require may
employees to maintain transmission facilities
E. Administrative and General Expenses Per Retail
Customer: Nebraska statistics for these expenses appear very favorable.
F. Debt Service Coverage: Generally the Nebraska rural
utilities have less debt than their regional counterparts, while the
Nebraska "Other Utilities" have a greater debt to total assets
ratio. Because the majority of the debt incurred is due to power
plant/generation construction, this is to be expected, i.e., NPPD, OPPD,
MEAN, LES. In term of debt service coverage, the Nebraska rural system are
in line with regional rurals while the "All Other" Nebraska
utilities is less than regional/national ratios. The primary reason is the
debt incurred for power plant construction. A typical APPA utility would
purchase and not finance generating plants to produce power.
G. Annual Load Factor: Nebraska utilities are below
both regional and national statistics. High summer loads due to air
conditioning, relative to the average annual use of electricity,
contribute to this result. Also the statewide demographics of lower than
national industrial sales (which tend to exhibit more levelized annual
consumption) is also a factor. Demand side management including irrigation
load control and off-peak load building program help improve this ratio.
4.8 SUMMARY AND EMERGING ISSUES
Competitive pressures could have extensive effects on electric
facilities, operations and planning for Nebraska systems. The following
questions address a range of potential impacts:
In a competitive retail market system what operational options would
there be for generation, transmission, or distribution?
What would the impact of any given option be on electric facilities
within the state?
- Who will plan, construct, and operate generating plants?
- What will the effects be on hydro production and irrigation?
- How will adequacy of capacity be assured in a competitive rather
than cooperative planning framework?
- Will there be a consumer-owned pool or sub-pool?
- Will there be both wholesale and retail competition?
- Who will plan, construct, and operate transmission facilities?
- Who will monitor and document reliability and set and oversee
reliability standards?
- What impact will MAPP policies and requirements have on Nebraska
transmission?
- Who will operate and maintain distribution facilities?
- Who be responsible for line extensions and at what cost to
consumers?
- What part of distribution functions will be competitive, if any?
- How will record-keeping and documentation be conducted?
- Who will be the provider of last resort?
What would the impacts of any given option be on joint planning to
assure efficient operations and delivery of service?
- In the absence of forecasting, how will power supply be assured and
at what cost?
- How will efficiency measures be advanced?
- How will environmental protection be maintained and advanced?
- How will renewable energy development be advanced?
- How will technology development be advanced?
What would the impacts of any given option be on the work force, safety
and quality of service?
What would the overall impact of any given option be on effectiveness
of service delivery and cost to customers?
Chapter One - HISTORY
Chapter Two - STRUCTURE AND
GOVERNANCE
Chapter Three - STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
Chapter Four - PLANNING AND
OPERATIONS
Chapter Five - FINANCE AND TAX
Chapter Six - DEREGULATION AND
RESTRUCTURING
Glossary
Chapter Notes
The Central Nebraska Public Power and
Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, Nebraska 68949
Phone 308-995-8601 Fax 308-995-5705
|