You are on page 1of 374

Final Report

2016 INTEGRATED RESOURCE


PLAN

Bermuda Electric Light Company

June 30, 2016


This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the
report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to
Leidos constitute the opinions of Leidos. To the extent that statements, information and opinions
provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, Leidos has relied
upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations
or warranties are made. Leidos makes no certification and gives no assurances except as
explicitly set forth in this report.
2016 Leidos, Inc.
All rights reserved.
2016 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
Table of Contents

Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures

Glossary of Terms

Executive Summary

GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................1

Section 1 IRP METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 1-1


1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Description of IRP Objectives ................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy of
Bermuda ................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Load Forecast ........................................................................................... 1-7
1.5 Fuel Forecast ............................................................................................ 1-9
1.6 Financial and Other Planning Criteria ................................................... 1-12
1.7 Existing Resources ................................................................................. 1-13
1.8 Demand-Side Resource Options ............................................................ 1-14
1.9 Supply-Side Resource Options .............................................................. 1-17
1.10 Levelized Cost of Energy Screening...................................................... 1-18
1.11 Production Cost Modeling ..................................................................... 1-19
1.11.1 Production Cost Cases ............................................................... 1-19
1.12 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources ........................................ 1-24

Section 2 Principal Assumptions and Considerations ........................................... 2-1


2.1 Principal Assumptions and Considerations ............................................. 2-1

Section 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 3-1


3.1 LCOE Results .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Modeling Results ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Sensitivity Analysis Results................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Qualitative Evaluation Results ............................................................... 3-12
3.5 Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................... 3-14
3.5.1 Evaluation Methodology............................................................ 3-14
3.5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................ 3-16
3.6 Procurement Plan ................................................................................... 3-19
3.6.1 Procurement Plan Overview ...................................................... 3-19
3.6.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply ................................................... 3-19
3.6.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Supply ............................................... 3-20

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1


Table of Contents

3.6.4 Thermal Resources .................................................................... 3-20


3.6.5 Utility Scale Solar PV ................................................................ 3-21
3.6.6 Battery Energy Storage .............................................................. 3-21
3.6.7 CHP............................................................................................ 3-21
3.6.8 Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation/Demand
Side Management ...................................................................... 3-22
3.6.9 5 MWac Solar PV Power Purchase Agreement ........................ 3-22

Section 4 IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... 4-1


4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 IRP Study Period ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Financial Factors ...................................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Load Forecast........................................................................................... 4-2
4.4.1 Weather Normalization Results ................................................... 4-2
4.4.2 Economic Data Review ............................................................... 4-6
4.4.3 Updated Econometric Model of Bermuda NEL .......................... 4-9
4.4.4 Load Forecast Methodology ...................................................... 4-10
4.4.5 Forecast Results ......................................................................... 4-11
4.5 Reserve Margin Planning Criteria ......................................................... 4-13
4.6 Existing Generating Resources .............................................................. 4-14
4.7 Power Supply Options ........................................................................... 4-17
4.7.1 Supply-Side Options .................................................................. 4-17
4.7.2 Demand-Side Options ................................................................ 4-21
4.7.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) Portfolio Definition ....... 4-24
4.7.4 Basis of Unit Operating Performance ........................................ 4-26
4.8 Projections and Detailed Fuel Model Development .............................. 4-27
4.9 Renewable Energy Portfolio Targets ..................................................... 4-36
4.10 Transmission System Constraints and Capital Expenditures ................ 4-37
4.11 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources........................................ 4-37
4.12 Alignment with the National Electricity Sector Policy of
Bermuda ................................................................................................. 4-38
4.13 Production Cost Case Definitions .......................................................... 4-41
4.14 Carbon Monetization Pricing ................................................................. 4-45

List of Appendices

A LOAD FORECAST
B RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
C FUEL PRICE PROJECTIONS
D DETAILED LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY AND SCENARIO
RESULTS
E COMBINED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SCORING
F DISCUSSION DOCUMENT FOR RESOURCES NOT
CONSIDERED IN IRP

GoT-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Table of Contents

List of Tables
Table 1-1 June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy
Supply Mix ....................................................................................................... 1-5
Table 1-2 Existing Power Generating Resource Mix ............................................... 1-14
Table 1-3 Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh) ....................... 1-17
Table 1-4 Qualitative Assessment Criteria ............................................................... 1-24
Table 3-1 Summary of Estimated Levelized Cost by Case ($/MWh) ........................ 3-3
Table 3-2 Energy Supply Mix Aspirational Mix (Case 2) ....................................... 3-5
Table 3-3 Energy Supply Mix Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) ............................... 3-5
Table 3-4 Energy Supply Mix Fuel-Oil (Case 5) ..................................................... 3-5
Table 3-5 Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) ............................ 3-6
Table 3-6 Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) ........................... 3-6
Table 3-7 Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) ................................................................................................ 3-7
Table 3-8 Fuel-Oil (Case 5) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW) ................... 3-8
Table 3-9 Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) ................................................................................................ 3-9
Table 3-10 Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) .............................................................................................. 3-10
Table 3-11 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given
Sensitivity Scenarios) ..................................................................................... 3-12
Table 3-12 Summary of Case Overall Ranking ........................................................ 3-15
Table 3-13 Sensitivity of Overall Ranking to Weighting Factors............................. 3-16
Table 4-1 Capacity Gap Analysis (Base Load Forecast with Reserves) ................... 4-16
Table 4-2 Key Solar PV Assumptions ...................................................................... 4-22
Table 4-3 Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh) ....................... 4-26
Table 4-4 Fuel Price Scenarios AEO Case Basis ...................................................... 4-34
Table 4-5 Qualitative Assessment Criteria ............................................................... 4-38
Table 4-6 June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy
Mix.................................................................................................................. 4-39
Table 4-7 Summary of Assumed Carbon Pricing ..................................................... 4-46

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-3


Table of Contents

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP ................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 Energy Forecast (GWh) ......................................................................... 1-8
Figure 1-3 Peak Demand Forecast (MW) ................................................................ 1-8
Figure 1-4 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast ................................................. 1-11
Figure 1-5 Base Case Delivered Cost Forecast...................................................... 1-11
Figure 3-1 NPV Summary of LCOE Analysis Results............................................ 3-1
Figure 3-2 Summary of Annual $/MWh Costs by Case .......................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Emissions by Case ................................. 3-3
Figure 3-4 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Intensity by Case.................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs by Year vs. Reference
Case ................................................................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-6 Qualitative Scoring Results .................................................................. 3-13
Figure 4-1 Parabolic Temperature Response for BELCO Peak Demand ................ 4-3
Figure 4-2 Actual v. Normal Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days for
Bermuda ........................................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-3 Historical and Weather Normalized System Energy (GWh) ................. 4-5
Figure 4-4 Historical and Weather Normalized System Peak Demand
(MW) ................................................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-5 Summary of Year-over-Year Changes in Real GDP ............................. 4-7
Figure 4-6 Energy Forecast .................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-7 Energy Forecast (Narrow Y-axis) ........................................................ 4-12
Figure 4-8 Peak Demand Forecast (MW) .............................................................. 4-13
Figure 4-9 Capacity vs. Load ................................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4-10 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast ............................................... 4-28
Figure 4-11 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (with Import Duty).......... 4-29
Figure 4-12 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (without Import
Duty) ............................................................................................................... 4-29
Figure 4-13 Base Case LFO Forecast (with Import Duty) .................................... 4-30
Figure 4-14 Base Case HFO Forecast (with Import Duty) .................................... 4-31
Figure 4-15 Base Case LPG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty) ............................. 4-31
Figure 4-16 Base Case LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate) Forecast (with
Import Duty) ................................................................................................... 4-32
Figure 4-17 Base Case LNG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty) ............................ 4-32
Figure 4-18 Base Case LNG Bulk Full Conversion Forecast (with Import
Duty) ............................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4-19 Base Case LNG Bulk Partial Conversion Forecast (with
Import Duty) ................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4-20 Base, High and Low LFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-34
Figure 4-21 Base, High and Low HFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-35
Figure 4-22 Base, High, and Low LPG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-35

GoT-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Table of Contents

Figure 4-23 Base, High, and Low LNG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty).......................................................................................... 4-36

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-5


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

This section includes definitions of acronyms and terms that are used within the 2016
Integrated Resource Plan.

TERM DEFINITION
AEO Annual Energy Outlook; an annual projection of key fuel and market
prices prepared by the United States Energy Information
Administration for purposes of informing energy analysis.
Assumptions Compilation of assumptions used as a basis for this IRP and
Document summarized as Section 4 of this report.
BAU Business As Usual
BELCO Bermuda Electric Light Company
BELCO Team BELCO IRP Project Team
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BSSR Battery Support for Spinning Reserve
BTU British Thermal Unit
CC Combined Cycle
CCHP Combined Cooling Heat and Power
CHP Combined Heat and Power
Conservation A premeditated behavioral adjustment associated with a conscious
decision to adjust an end-users utility or comfort in order to reduce
energy consumption; examples include adjusting the thermostat at
the expense of temperature comfort, and turning off lights when not
in the room; contrast with energy efficiency (defined below).
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CT Combustion Turbine (Same as gas turbine)
DG Distributed Generation; resources that generate electricity that are
distributed across the power delivery grid or installed to serve the
load of a specific end-user or customer; examples include rooftop
solar generation and CCHP/CHP units that serve a single load; DG
resources typically avoid transmission cost associated with
traditional large scale grid-based resources.
DOE Department of Energy (U.S.)

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1


Glossary of Terms

TERM DEFINITION
DR Demand Response - Programs that target reductions in demand
during key peak hours of utility load through direct intervention to
curtail certain end-uses; example: water heater direct load control
that cycles water heaters to limit their utilization during anticipated
critical peak load events at the utility level.
DSM Demand Side Management; an umbrella of measures, programs,
and incentives that attempt to control energy demand in lieu of
serving that demand with generating resources that are grid
connected in the traditional centrally controlled utility framework; the
key components of DSM include demand response (defined above),
energy efficiency (defined below), and conservation (defined above).
EE Energy Efficiency; deriving the same utility from a given end-use
using a less energy-intensive device that does not require a change
in user behavior or intervention to conserve energy, and/or programs
and incentives that encourage end-use switch-outs to more efficient
units; example: Energy Star dishwasher incentive programs.
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPC Engineer Procure and Construct
FEED Feasibility and Front End Engineering Design
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
Fuel Cell A technology that converts chemical energy directly into electricity
from natural gas and air vapor and produces heat and water vapor
as by products.
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GT Gas Turbine (same as CT)
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
IC Internal Combustion
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ISO International Organization of Standardization
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
Leidos Leidos Engineering, LLC
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy

GoT-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Glossary of Terms

TERM DEFINITION
LFO Light Fuel Oil
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MSD Medium Speed Diesel
NG Natural Gas
NPV Net Present Value
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
PV Photovoltaic
RET Screen An Excel-based clean energy project analysis software tool that
helps decision makers quickly and inexpensively determine the
technical and financial viability of potential renewable energy, energy
efficiency and cogeneration projects.
RFP Request for Proposals
SAM System Analyzer Model
SC Simple-Cycle
SME Subject Matter Expert
SSD Slow Speed Diesel
STG Steam Turbine Generator
Synapse Report Synapse 2016 CO2 Price Forecast
Study Period 20-year IRP study period beginning in 2017
T&D Transmission and Distribution
Tg/QBtu Tera Grams per Quadrillion Btu
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
Tynes Bay Tynes Bay Waste-to-Energy Facility
U.S. United States
W Watt
WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital
White Paper 2011 Bermuda Energy White Paper: A National Energy Transition

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-3


Glossary of Terms

TERM DEFINITION
WT Wind Turbine
WTE Waste-to-Energy

GoT-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Overview
The Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) has engaged Leidos Engineering,
LLC (Leidos) to prepare a comprehensive integrated resource plan (IRP) capturing
the costs, risks and benefits of alternative expansion paths consisting of various
combinations of candidate resource options. The IRP reflects a 20-year forecast horizon,
beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2036 (the Study Period). The
IRP as presented in this report is focused exclusively on the cost of production
associated with either serving or abating Bermudas electricity demand over the Study
Period and does not reflect the translation of estimated production costs into retail rates
for any of BELCOs retail sectors. Such efforts typically follow IRP activities and are
predicated upon the selected expansion plan, which includes the cost of both supply-
side resources that serve load and demand-side management initiatives that cost-
effectively abate load.
Bermuda is faced with significant challenges and opportunities as it navigates its energy
future. In the wake of recently declining loads driven by the recent global economic
contraction, an aging asset base made up almost exclusively of oil-fired diesel
generation must be replaced with a blend of sustainable, reliable, and cost-effective
electric generating resources that carefully balance a variety of stakeholder objectives
while maintaining a reliable power grid. Figure ES-1 below summarizes recent year-
over-year changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) in the territory, as reported
in the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic Report.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP

Based on Leidos review of the above mentioned reports, as well as supportive material
and information provided by BELCO related to the recent outlook accompanying the
country credit ratings by Standard & Poor (S&P) and Fitch rating agencies, a gradual
economic recovery is anticipated in Bermuda and, based on initial indications regarding
2015 GDP, currently underway. Consequently, a successful IRP must set objectives
that align with economic and stakeholder expectations, as described further below.

Description of IRP Objectives


Throughout the course of the IRP process, a set of overarching objectives were defined
and met. These Global IRP Objectives are as follows:
The IRP process will engage in a holistic evaluation of both quantitative and
qualitative factors, intending to result in a plan that will supply electricity at the
least cost, subject to qualitative factors analyzed herein.
The IRP process will reflect a concurrent evaluation of all possible resources,
including both supply- and demand-side resource options, potential retirements of
existing resources, and diversification of the generation portfolio.
The IRP process will provide an indication regarding the level of distributed
generation capacity that can reasonably be integrated into the BELCO system,
subject to a more detailed technical evaluation, which is beyond the scope of this
effort.

ES-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The IRP process will build upon considerable work already done by BELCO.
The IRP process will be sensitive to government and stakeholder feedback while
navigating logistical and fuel supply challenges.
The IRP process will include a procurement plan with recommendations
regarding whether any resources will be procured through competitive bidding.
The IRP will be designed as a living and recurring process, and will serve as the
main precursor to detailed feasibility studies.
Refer to Section 1 of this report for a more detailed description of the IRP objectives.

Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy


of Bermuda
In June 2015, the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda was released
alongside a statement from the Bermuda Ministry of Economic Development. An
integrated process involving stakeholders from across Bermuda was deployed in order
to develop the policy, which aims to reinforce the central objective of providing reliable,
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The government has
defined four objectives for the electricity sector, as follows:

Least cost and high-quality: electricity service that is delivered at the lowest
possible financial cost, without compromising safety standards or failing end
users expectations for reliability and customer service
Environmentally sustainable: electricity service that, over time, does not cause
economic harm to Bermudas sensitive natural environment, or cause economic
harm to the global environment
Secure: electricity service that is provided using a mix of primary energy options
that are procured from reliable sources and under terms that make Bermuda
resilient to shocks (such as dramatic changes in the availability or price of fuels,
or the introduction of binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions)
Affordable: electricity service that allows all Bermudians to pay for at least a
basic supply, while preserving (where cross-subsidies for ensuring basic supply
are involved) the competitiveness of Bermudas productive sector.

Table ES-1 below provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of resources as
a percent of total energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the policy also
assumes approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side management
initiatives; refer to later sections of this report for further details regarding assumed
demand-side management and energy efficiency options).

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Supply Mix

Fuel/Resource Type 2020 2025 2035


Natural Gas 92% 65% 62%
Waste-to-Energy 3% 3% 3%
Bulk-Scale Solar PV 2% 2% 2%
Distributed Solar PV 1% 2% 6%
Solar Water Heaters 2% 2% 2%
Future Renewable Energy (Undefined) 0% 26% 25%

The policy also contains aspirational mix tables based on demand as well as carbon
abatement targets.
As an objective of the IRP, it was crucial to ensure alignment with the intent and
objectives of the updated policy. As a result of the holistic approach used for resource
planning, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying Assumptions
Document (Section 4 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the aspirational mix within
the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources considered and the
incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. Refer to Section 1 of this
report for a more detailed description of the specifics of the policy and the tactics
deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the policy.

Overview of IRP Cases Considered


Given the various analyses of future load, future delivered fuel prices to Bermuda, and
detailed parameterization of both supply-side and demand-side options as detailed in
Sections 1 and 4 of this report, which should be reviewed in detail and for which this
description herein is not a substitute, Leidos defined seven cases that were subjected to
detailed production cost modeling. At a high level, these cases were generally predicated
upon the following:
Consideration of the desired thermal fuel path, which included traditional fuel-oil
resources, natural gas resources, and propane gas resources;
Consideration of the potential range of the cost of differing fuels over the Study
Period, including commodity, delivery (e.g., ocean transport), on-island
infrastructure (e.g., pipeline, storage, etc.), taxes, and other components
Consideration of the appropriate types and size of renewables, including wind,
biomass and photovoltaic (PV) options, the latter of which included potential
power purchase arrangements;

ES-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Consideration of the value of energy storage, modeled as a function of a battery


energy storage system (BESS) to displace spinning reserves, potentially reducing
the utilitys reserve margin 1, and support the intermittency of renewable generation;
Consideration of the appropriate scale and type of demand-side resources
management and distributed generation options, including residential solar-thermal
water heaters, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) resource expansion, commercial
PV expansion, and a generic, as yet undefined energy efficiency block that has been
priced to provide credit to the longitudinal benefits of energy efficiency that accrue
to the utility after the initial incentive has been provided to participants, and
Benchmarking and simulation of the Aspirational Mix in the June 2015 policy
document to determine the performance of such a case using parameters developed
in support of all of the other cases.
Refer to later sections and supporting appendices of this report for detailed descriptions
of each of the seven cases, as well as a case matrix that specifically identifies the
resource options that were included in each case, one of which aimed to find the strictly
least cost expansion plan.
At this stage of the simulations, Leidos interacted with the client regarding the
overarching analysis, which included the completion of the qualitative evaluation of
each individual resource option. The following is a list of the qualitative evaluation
criteria, which are defined in section 1.
Supply Quality
Environmental Sustainability
Security and Cost Resilience
Logistics
Economic Development
Subsequent to the initial simulation of the seven cases and the combined quantitative
and qualitative scoring, the Four Finalist Cases were extracted from the list of seven
based on their ranking and plausibility, excluding both the Least Cost Case and the
Aspirational Mix Case. As the Least Cost Case reflected a partial LPG conversion
coupled with energy efficiency, but no new renewables, it was viewed as not meeting a
major National Electricity Sector Policy objective. As the Aspirational Mix Case
assumes that future costs of renewables would be similar to natural gas thermal
resources, it was viewed as not plausible at this time. The Four Finalist Cases are:
Fuel Oil Case (fuel oil-centric expansion plan).
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan).
Partial Conversion LNG Case (most logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion
plan).

1
Refer to other sections of this report for certain considerations related to the distinction between
displacement of spinning reserves and the limitations of current storage technology to fully supplant
operating reserves.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-5


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Partial Conversion LPG Case (most logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion


plan).
In addition, a series of sensitivities were conducted on each of the final cases. Table
ES-2 summarizes the nature and objective of each of the sensitivities conducted.

Table ES-2
Summary of Production Cost Sensitivities

Sensitivity Objective(s)
Fuel Cost Determine whether the differential in long-term volatility of
competing thermal options results in a different conclusion
at a higher level of fuel cost, lower level of fuel cost and/or
more robust resource bases for oil and gas extraction.
Carbon Monetization Determine how each case compares in terms of carbon
footprint using indicative carbon pricing.
Cost of Capital Determine the cash outlay differential on a net present
value (NPV) basis should BELCOs cost of capital
fluctuate from baseline conditions.
Reserve Margin Determine the cost savings resulting from assuming that
storage can supplant the spinning component of the
operating reserves and allow for reduced capacity
expansion of thermal resources.
Load Forecast Determine whether higher or lower than anticipated load
growth materially impacts capacity requirements and
costs.
The sum total of the production cost modeling performed on the Four Finalist Cases,
including all sensitivities, as well as the qualitative attributes evaluated across each
possible expansion path and each specific resource option, were combined to derive the
findings in this report over the Study Period.

IRP Results
Results are presented below, firstly for the qualitative evaluation of the individual
resources and then for the production cost modeling of the cases, followed by the
combined quantitative and qualitative scoring and ranking. The process used for fusing
the result of the qualitative evaluation of the resources with the result of the economic
analysis to provide a single score for final ranking and decision-making purposes is
provided in Appendix E2. A weighting factor of 70/30 (quantitative / qualitative) was
judged to be reasonable in combining the scores, subject to further public consultation
and Regulator assessment. Additionally, a table providing the case rankings at
weighting factors of 50/50, 60/40 and 80/20 are provided in Appendix E2. Finally the
results of the sensitivity analysis are presented for the Four Finalist Cases and specific
findings are provided and suggested action items related to the expansion plan are
offered.
Figure ES-2 summarizes the results of the qualitative evaluation for each candidate
resource type.

ES-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Energy Efficiency Battery Storage Utility Solar PV Thermal Distributed Solar Residential Solar Offshore Wind Thermal Thermal
/ Demand Side for Spinning with Battery Resources- PV Thermal and PV with Battery Resources - Fuel Resources
Management Reserve Storage Natural Gas / Storage Oil Liquefied
Fuel Oil Petroleum Gas

Supply Quality Environmental Sustainability Security and Cost Resilience Logistics Economic Development

Figure ES-2 Qualitative Scoring Results

The key takeaways from the results of the qualitative analysis are as follows:
The generic energy efficiency/demand-side management resource scored highest at
87.5 percent across all categories. This is a function of the fact that the measures
contemplated are environmentally sustainable, promote energy security and cost
resilience and are relatively easy to implement. Additionally, energy efficiency can
help to engender trust and goodwill between the utility and their customers.
The block of battery storage for spinning reserve has the next highest qualitative
score at 82.5 percent, as a result of very high marks across all evaluation factors,
other than economic development.
The block of utility solar PV, thermal resources utilizing natural gas as the primary
fuel, distributed solar PV, and residential solar thermal and PV have the next highest
qualitative scores, ranging between 60 and 70 percent.
Offshore wind, thermal resources operating on fuel oil, and the same burning LPG
fuel scored 50, 50, and 47.5 percent, respectively. The offshore wind scored low due
to poor supply quality and low economic development. Thermal resources scored
poorly because of the increased handling and transportation risks and the reduced
infrastructure requirement associated with LPG when compared with LNG, along
with low environmental sustainability.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-7


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-3 summarizes the estimated levelized costs for all of the cases .

Table ES-3
Estimated Levelized Costs for All Cases ($/MWh)

Levelized Difference from % Difference from


Case Cost($/MWh) Reference Case ($/MWh) Reference Case
Reference/BAU
213.65
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
214.65 1.01 0.5%
(Case 2)
Least Cost
188.59 (25.06) (11.7)%
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
202.67 (10.98) (5.1)%
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
213.00 (0.65) (0.3)%
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion
199.26 (14.39) (6.7)%
LPG (Case 6)
Partial Conversion
205.12 (8.52) (4.0)%
LNG (Case 7)

Table ES-4 summarizes the combined quantitative and qualitative scoring for all of the
cases.

Table ES-4
Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Scoring for All Cases

Weighted Weighted Total Combined


Cases Quantitative Score Qualitative Score Score Rank
Reference/BAU
61.8% 23.0% 84.8% 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
61.5% 29.4% 90.9% 4
(Case 2)
Least Cost
70.0% 23.1% 93.1% 3
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
65.1% 30.0% 95.1% 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
62.0% 24.3% 86.3% 6
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG
66.3% 24.2% 90.4% 5
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG
64.4% 28.9% 93.3% 2
(Case 7)

ES-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-3 summarizes the by year cost in dollars per megawatt hour ($/MWh) for
each of the cases. The Four Finalist Cases are shown alongside the Reference Case in
order to demonstrate the quantitative differences of the Four Finalist Cases relative to
Business as Usual (BAU) conditions.

BELCO 2016 IRP


Summary of Estimated Production Cost ($/MWh) by Case
400

300
$/MWh

200

100

0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Case 1 - Reference Case 4 - LNG Full Conversion
Case 5 - Fuel Oil Case 6 - LPG Partial Conversion
Case 7 - LNG Partial Conversion
Figure ES-3 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs ($/MWh) by Year vs. Reference
Case (Case 1)

Table ES-5 summarizes the percent difference of the levelized cost in dollars per
megawatt-hour ($/MWh) over the Study Period between the Four Finalist Cases and
the Referenced Case for given sensitivity scenarios. Note that MWh are inclusive of
energy abated, as applicable.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-9


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-5
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given Sensitivity Scenarios)
Full Partial Partial
Sensitivity Fuel-oil
Conversion LNG Conversion LPG Conversion LNG
Scenario (Case 5)
(Case 4) (Case 6) (Case 7)
n-2 Reserve
(9.60)% 0.09% (5.73)% (2.90)%
Margin
High Fuel Price (22.54)% (3.28)% (20.05)% (17.28)%
Low Fuel Price 1.97% 1.85% 3.54% 3.12%
High Load
(9.08)% (0.87)% (8.67)% (5.87)%
Forecast
Low Load Forecast (4.60)% 0.58% (3.99)% (1.64)%
High Cost of
(4.07)% 0.16% (5.78)% (3.28)%
Capital
Low Cost of Capital (6.21)% (0.77)% (7.70)% (4.71)%
Low Carbon
(6.35)% (0.81)% (7.44)% (4.98)%
Monetization
Mid Carbon
(6.77)% (0.99)% (7.69)% (5.33)%
Monetization
High Carbon
(7.42)% (1.27)% (8.08)% (5.87)%
Monetization

Refer to the body of this report for a more detailed description of the resources included
in each case.

Findings
Based on the totality of evaluations, assumptions, and dispatch analyses conducted for
purposes of the IRP, the details of which should be reviewed carefully, the following is
a list of findings and conclusions in the form of recommended actions and next steps
relative to the results:
1. The top two ranked cases reflect full and partial LNG conversion (Cases 4 and
7), respectively, as well as renewables, DSM and batteries. While the LNG
cases are more capital intensive than the other cases, they are in alignment with
the June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy and are likely to reflect lower
volatility of fuel supply than the LPG case. In addition, the full conversion LNG
case has the potential for natural gas to serve other uses in Bermuda via a piped
distribution network
2. The third ranked case, the Least Cost (Case 3), reflects a partial conversion to
LPG with energy efficiency resources but no renewables. Accordingly, it

ES-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

deviates from a major objective of the June 2015 Policy and is not a plausible
plan.
3. The fourth ranked case, the Aspirational Mix (Case 2), reflects the addition of
significant renewable capacity based on the assumption that future costs of
renewables would be similar to those of natural gas thermal resources. This case
provides estimated benefits relative to BAU conditions. Given the speculative
nature of the future renewable resource embedded in the aspirational mix,
BELCO continues to monitor developments in renewable generation options and
will work with the Regulator to refine this case in future IRP iterations given
updated information. In particular, BELCO is tracking the development of the
CETO wave energy technology by Triton Renewable Energy Ltd which is
actively working with Carnegie Wave Energy in exploring the potential of a
commercial wave energy farm in Bermuda. Commercial roll out of the CETO
technology for island jurisdictions is anticipated for 2020/2021. With regard to
wind resource, there is a need to execute a wind resource assessment study
comprising a years recording of wind data in order to more accurately quantify
the projected performance of wind resource in Bermuda.
4. The differential in levelized cost across the cases relates primarily to: (i)
commodity price forecast for the candidate fuels; (ii) estimated cost of fuel
transport, storage and processing as necessary; and (iii) estimated capital and
operating cost for candidate resources.
5. The pace at which energy efficiency performance is pursued also drives some
small amount of levelized cost difference amongst cases, but in general, given
the long-term view and likely pursuit of low hanging fruit energy efficiency
measures, such initiatives can be expected to be cost-effective relative to
additional supply-side capacity expansion.
6. The battery for spinning reserve performs well in the LPG-centric case due to
the greater heat rate differential for the combined cycle units involved when
operating at minimum load versus maximum load. This is not the case in the
LNG or reference case, wherein the batterys overall financial performance is
not as attractive due to a far smaller heat rate differential during operation of the
reciprocating internal combustion engine generators.
7. The inclusion of a battery system for renewable support across all 7 cases (if
applicable) does not negate the overall cost benefits (or savings) of the two main
thermal expansion paths (i.e. LNG-centric and LPG-centric) relative to BAU
conditions. This is generally due to the contained nature of the cost of owning
and operating the battery system relative to the total costs of the overall power
supply portfolio, the fuel cost deltas and operational efficiencies of which drive
the majority of cost savings. BELCO should consider deployment of battery
systems that may be able to serve more than one function (spinning reserve
contingency in addition to support for intermittent renewable resources).
8. BELCO should continue to pursue a robust and well-defined energy efficiency
program that attacks low hanging fruit elements of conservation and energy
efficiency activities.. Actual market potential associated with an energy

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-11


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

efficiency portfolio will be significantly less than the technical or economic


potential of such programs, and consequently, a balanced approach to portfolio
evaluations that involve more detailed cost-benefit analysis of specific portfolio
elements should be undertaken. As evidenced by the expanding cost of the DSM
supply curve as additional incremental amounts of achievement are assumed, a
more explicitly defined portfolio of programs can help lower the cost of
incremental achievement. In response to a directive [EC/BEL-BRDIR-0316]
issued by current Regulator, the Energy Commission, during the development
of the 2016 IRP. BELCO identified that any realistic plan for Bermuda would
require an Achievable Potential Study (APS) that would determine Bermudas
specific achievable savings associated with an Energy Efficiency and Energy
Conservation Program.
9. Based on the qualitative performance of utility-scale solar, as well as the more
advantageous cost estimated for utility-scale solar as compared to the residential
solar thermal and commercial distributed PV options, BELCO should pursue
further investigations regarding utility-scale options, either utility-sourced or via
a power purchase agreement (PPA) arrangement. Given the additional
benefits of PV that relate to sustainable resources and reduced emissions, this
resource should continue to be explored with more detailed feasibility studies
and/or a procurement process related to a solar PPA.
10. As part of the evaluation of the Four Finalist Cases, combined heat and power
(CHP) distributed generation utilizing a reciprocating engine was evaluated.
The sizing of the generating unit was based upon the electric demand load
requirements of a generic customer and the thermal recovery equipment sized to
maximize the thermal energy of the exhaust for providing domestic hot water
heating. The Full Conversion LNG Case, Partial Conversion LNG Case
(logistically plausible LNG expansion plan) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (logistically plausible LPG expansion plan), all retained as part of the Four
Finalist Cases, considered the use of CHP resources. Further detailed study
should be performed to assess the full range of benefits this type of resource may
provide.
11. As evidenced by the Annual Expansion Summary Plan for the Full Conversion
LNG-centric case in Table 3-7, there are certain years when the system surplus
capacity is relatively high, primarily as a result of (i) the nominal capacity of the
base load candidate resources used in the analysis and (ii) the addition of the
solar PV resources to meet the renewable energy target. If deemed necessary,
the rated capacity of the base load resources can be addressed during the request
for proposal (RFP) process when proposals can be invited for lower capacity
units as well as those included in the plan and the final decision made on the
basis of overall economics. Of course, the updated near-term system peak load
forecast must also be considered in making decisions related to the level of
surplus capacity.
12. With regard to the sensitivities performed, the following are the main
implications of such sensitivity scenarios:

ES-12 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fuel Price Scenarios: The fuel price scenarios resulted in the most
dramatic changes in the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases
compared with the other sensitivity scenarios. The Fuel-Oil Case (Case
5) becomes the lowest cost case in the Low Fuel sensitivity because the
price advantage of either LNG or LPG over oil is not great enough to
offset the additional capital required in the gas-centric cases. Conversely,
in the High Fuel sensitivity scenario, the LNG price advantage expands
and the Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) becomes the lowest cost
case.
Carbon Monetization Scenarios: These sensitivity scenarios do not
change the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases due to the
relatively low additional cost imposed by the monetization of carbon
relative to the total production costs. The monetization of carbon adds
from 2% (LNG Cases) to 6% (Oil Cases) to total productions costs. The
benefits of lower carbon emissions from the LNG-centric cases do not
fully overcome the lower fuel costs of the LPG-centric cases in these
sensitivities.
The Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (Case 6) were the lowest cost cases in the sensitivity scenarios
relating to cost of capital, reserve margin and load forecast.
Assumptions and analyses contained in this IRP should be revisited on a recurring basis
in order to reexamine changes in fuel markets and technologies over time. Leidos has
worked to craft a repeatable process that is predicated upon a warehouse of data on
existing assets, load, and other key assumptions that can be adjusted and reconfigured
as new information becomes available. The IRP process should be internalized within
the utility and viewed as a study that is re-executed in the future to determine whether
any revisions to the long-term course of action suggested by the prior IRP are warranted
as a result of changes to fuel prices, infrastructure and generating unit costs, changes in
load expectations, or other key factors influencing the IRP results.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Section 1 focuses on the various
technical methodologies deployed in the IRP. Section 2 summarizes the key
assumptions associated with the IRP. Section 3 provides detailed IRP results, including
the LCOE, production cost modeling results, and qualitative analysis results.
Importantly, Section 3 also provides a planning-level procurement plan for various
resource options as required in the July 2015 energy policy document described above.
Section 4 provides extensive detail on all key IRP technical assumptions.
Additionally, numerous appendices are provided in support of this report. Appendix A
summarizes the load forecast. Appendix B summarizes all pertinent cost and
performance assumptions associated with BELCOs existing resource base and future
resource options. Appendix C provides summary tables of projections for each of the
fuel types considered in the IRP. Finally, Appendices D and E summarize the
quantitative, qualitative and combined IRP results, respectively.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-13


Section 1
IRP METHODOLOGY

1.1 Project Overview


The Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) has engaged Leidos Engineering,
LLC (Leidos) to prepare a rigorous, holistic, and comprehensive integrated resource
plan (IRP) for Bermuda to assist with identification of the costs, benefits and risks of
alternative expansion paths consisting of various combinations of candidate resource
options. The IRP analysis covers the 20-year period beginning January 1, 2017, and
ending December 31, 2036 (the Study Period). The IRP as presented in this report is
one element of an overarching strategy and series of analyses undertaken by BELCO to
ensure that the outcome of this evaluation addresses a wide array of stakeholder
priorities, including downstream rate impacts, estimates of economic activity and job
creation, and the development of a rate timeline commensurate with the intended
resource portfolio suggested by the IRP. This report is bounded by the domain of
analysis for which Leidos was retained, which does not include the latter noted analyses.
Importantly, the IRP as presented in this report is focused exclusively on the cost of
production associated with either serving or abating Bermudas electricity demand over
the Study Period, and does not reflect the translation of estimated production costs into
retail rates for any of BELCOs rate sectors. Such efforts typically follow IRP activities
and are predicated upon the selected expansion plan, which includes the cost of both
supply-side resources that serve load and demand-side management initiatives that cost-
effectively abate load.
Bermuda is faced with a series of significant challenges and opportunities as it navigates
its energy future. In the wake of recently declining loads driven from the global
economic contraction, an aging asset base made up almost exclusively of oil-fired diesel
generation must be replaced with a blend of sustainable, reliable, and cost-effective
supply- and demand-side resources that carefully balance a variety of stakeholder
objectives while maintaining a reliable power grid. Figure 1-1 below summarizes recent
year-over-year changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) and reflects consecutive
declines over the last several years, as reported in the 2015 Ministry of Finance National
Economic Report. However, 2014 and 2015 appear to reflect a potential turning point
in economic activity, given the much smaller contraction in 2014 and the initial estimate
reported therein that 2015 may have exhibited real growth of 1.5 percent or more.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Section 1

Figure 1-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP

Based on Leidos review of the above mentioned reports, as well as supportive material
and information provided by BELCO related to the recent outlook accompanying the
country credit ratings by Standard & Poors (S&P) and Fitch rating agencies, a
gradual and protracted economic recovery is anticipated in Bermuda. Consequently, a
successful IRP must set objectives that align with economic and stakeholder
expectations, as described further below.

1.2 Description of IRP Objectives


Throughout the course of the IRP process, BELCO partnered with Leidos to ensure that
a defined set of overarching objectives were met. Decisions regarding future resources
for this particular iteration of resource planning will have a significant impact on the
future state of power supply in Bermuda, and consequently, care was taken at the start
of the project to generate detailed feedback on goals, so that the execution of the IRP
was strategically aligned with those goals. These Global IRP Objectives are as follows:
The IRP process will engage in a holistic evaluation of both quantitative and
qualitative factors. Historically, resource planning has been focused on finding the
least cost expansion path as defined by the NPV of production cost over a
prescribed study period. This approach, while efficient, fails to recognize that there
may be additional, non-monetary or difficult to quantify benefits of alternative
expansion paths or portfolios. These alternatives may very well serve to meet the
needs of today in a more sustainable manner, help to support renewable portfolio

1-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

standards, encourage economic investment, or be logistically advantageous given


Bermudas island terrain. Engaging in a qualitative evaluation of resource options
and pairing this review with detailed financial modeling of options can serve to
ensure a more holistic perspective when taking downstream action. Additionally,
resource options that may not have been considered historically on the basis of raw
cost, such as combined heating and power options, may actually help lower costs
when a more complete estimate of the implications of adding such resources is
considered (in this particular case, revenues from the sale of byproducts to
participating off-takers).
The IRP process will engage in a concurrent evaluation of supply-side and
demand-side options. The term integrated in integrated resource plan implies that
the plan will engage in an equally rigorous evaluation of demand-side resource
options as it does with traditional supply-side resources. As described elsewhere in
this report, BELCO and Leidos have developed detailed estimates of costs, energy
impacts, and peak demand impacts of a series of demand-side management options
(which by definition can include certain energy efficiency measures), and Leidos has
included these options in the load dispatch modeling in order to carefully examine
the cost implications of abating load through demand-side options wherever
possible. BELCO has provided estimates of uptake potential for each of the demand-
side resource options as well as a generic energy efficiency program block, which
has been assumed to be implemented over the Study Period. Additionally, demand-
side resources as well as the generic energy efficiency block were subjected to the
same qualitative evaluation as the supply-side resources, in order to ensure a fully
equal treatment of options throughout the IRP process.
The IRP process will build upon considerable work already done by BELCO.
Throughout the IRP process, care was taken not to duplicate analyses, and to
leverage existing data developed by BELCO whenever possible. This was
particularly true for data from asset manufacturers, inputs regarding uptake for
demand-side management options, supportive insights on the load forecast,
performance characteristics of existing assets and associated retirement dates, and
existing feasibility studies on certain resource options that were previously
commissioned by BELCO or the Bermuda government. This information exchange
between BELCO and Leidos helped to expedite the planning process and helped to
shed light on the areas of focus in terms of data gaps.
The IRP process will be aligned with Bermudas Electricity Sector Policy and will
be sensitive to stakeholder feedback while navigating logistical and fuel supply
challenges. BELCO has gathered a significant amount of information regarding
current stakeholder perspectives on BELCOs future resource mix. Additionally, as
summarized in detail below, the government has released an updated National
Electricity Sector Policy in June 2015 with which the IRP must align. There is
significant momentum around a more sustainable resource path that includes an
emphasis on demand-side management resource deployment, reduced emissions, the
potential for transitioning to a gaseous fuel as the primary baseload fuel, and having
a certain amount of fuel flexibility in the BELCO portfolio. These priorities must be
balanced with the need to ensure reliable service at a reasonable cost, the urgency of

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-3


Section 1

finding a viable alternative to continued dispatch of an aging existing asset base, and
the logistical challenges associated with delivery of natural gas or other alternatives
to Bermuda (including the significant capital expenditure necessary to do so). As
evidenced by the nature of the qualitative analysis designed for this IRP, as well as
the level of rigor afforded to the estimates of capital cost for certain items, BELCO
has placed an emphasis on obtaining objective estimates of the long term
implications of a wide array of future expansion paths.
The IRP will be designed as a living and recurring process, and will serve as the
main precursor to detailed feasibility studies. Leidos has worked extensively with
BELCO to design a series of input models to capture key IRP assumptions. We have
constructed a customized LCOE screening model as well as a series of repeatable
steps and criteria for qualitative analysis of resource options. We have also prepared
a load forecast and infused the existing BELCO resource base into a production cost
model. All of the inputs to the analysis have been codified in a detailed Assumptions
Document, which forms the basis of Section 4 of this report. Through the
construction of a living resource planning process, we have ensured that as additional
information becomes available and/or as the passage of time warrants additional
analysis, the underpinnings of the IRP architecture can again be leveraged in lieu of
starting over. This living/recurring process is one of the primary goals of the IRP,
and at its core is the ability to revisit the Assumptions Document or any one of the
existing suite of input files and models to make adjustments, additions, or deletions
as deemed warranted. This is preferable to a more short-term focus on obtaining
results for this iteration of the process that would sacrifice the detailed
documentation necessary to render the process repeatable.

1.3 Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector


Policy of Bermuda
In June 2015, the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda was released
alongside a statement from the Bermuda Ministry of Economic Development. An
integrated process involving stakeholders from across Bermuda was deployed in order
to develop the policy, which aims to reinforce the central objective of providing reliable,
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The policy also
defines the boundaries and roles of the Regulatory Authority and the Electric Utility,
creating a roadmap to enable a collaborative, iterative planning effort that fosters further
development of distributed resources and proactively works towards a mature demand-
side management portfolio that can reduce long term energy usage in a cost-effective
manner.
According to the policy document, the planning paradigm for Bermudas long term
electricity sector resource development and procurement will be predicated upon an IRP
process as the foundational basis for making decisions. The utilitys role is defined as
providing bulk generation, as well as transmission, distribution, and retail services, with
additional participation by independent power producers (IPPs) and distributed
generators who may sell electricity to the utility at economical rates and with tariff
structures that ensure that the utility can recover costs plus an equitable rate of return.

1-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

The policy also defines an IRP review role for the Regulatory Authority, which will be
overseen by the government. The Regulatory Authority will also be responsible for
processing and considering feedback on energy policy from end-users. If the Regulatory
Authority is not satisfied that the draft IRP meets this Policys objectives, it submits
questions or guidance to the Electric Utility. The Electric Utility responds to questions
and critiques by submitting a revised draft IRP to the Regulatory Authority for
reconsideration. This iterative process continues until the Regulatory Authority is
satisfied with the IRP and it is finalized.
The updated policy goes on to define an aspirational mix of future resources that
essentially encompass the boundary of resource options evaluated in this IRP, including
LNG resources, utility-scale and small-scale photovoltaics (PV), cost-effective
demand-side management initiatives, the continued operation and expansion of the
Tynes Bay waste-to-energy facility, and future additional renewable resources that are
hypothesized to be cost competitive relative to LNG resources sometime in the future.
The policy is careful to note that as the Electric Utility endeavors to complete its IRP,
reviews and revisions to the aspirational mix using the best available data at the time
the IRP is produced are expected as part of the planning process. Consequently,
investment decisions made through the IRP process may differ from those shown in the
aspirational mix, and there are no specific penalties associated with deviation from a set
standard. Table 1-1 below provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of
resources as a percent of total energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the
policy also assumes approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side
management initiatives; refer to later sections of this report for further details regarding
assumed demand-side management and energy efficiency options).

Table 1-1
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Supply Mix

Resource Type 2020 2025 2035


Natural Gas 92% 65% 62%
Waste-to-Energy 3% 3% 3%
Bulk-Scale Solar PV 2% 2% 2%
Distributed Solar PV 1% 2% 6%
Solar Water Heaters 2% 2% 2%
Future Renewable Energy (Undefined) 0% 26% 25%

The policy also contains aspirational mix tables based on demand as well as carbon
abatement targets.
As an objective of the IRP, it was crucial to ensure alignment with the intent and
objectives of the updated energy policy. As a result of the holistic approach to resource
planning deployed, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the
aspirational mix within the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources
considered and the incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. As part
of the policy, an aspirational mix of resources relative to Business as Usual (BAU)

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-5


Section 1

conditions is delineated, and the intent of the IRP is to estimate the cost of the BAU
case as compared to alternatives. Additionally, sensitivities with respect to carbon
monetization and other key long term levers can be executed as future IRP scenarios are
defined in partnership with BELCO, and as the IRP process becomes internalized.
The specific tactics that are deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the
policy include the following:
Holistic and diverse examination of feasible supply-side and demand-side resources,
including LNG, LPG, PV, battery storage, distributed generation in the form of
combined heating and power (CHP), and the proposed demand-side management
(DSM) measures described herein, ensure alignment with the long-range
aspirational mix elucidated in the updated energy policy.
Detailed and transparent assumptions regarding load growth, capacity needs,
logistical constraints related to new capacity being integrated into the system, and
the modeling methodology deployed to evaluate the economics of options fosters the
iterative process of review of the IRP as envisioned in the policy.
Tables summarizing resource options cost and performance characteristics as
developed for the 2016 BELCO IRP can be compared to sources and assumptions
compiled as part of the updated energy policys cost estimates for the BAU and
aspirational mix cases.
Production cost modeling scenarios can be deployed to capture the aspirational mix,
recognizing the limitations of the as yet undefined future renewable resource. To
conquer that challenge, the component of the portfolio comprising the renewable
resource has been assumed to be cost-equivalent to LNG, which allows for the
analysis to capture the same cost implications using an LNG deployment case.
The qualitative analysis of each resource option provides further opportunity for
Energy Commission and other stakeholder commentary regarding the indirect
benefits attributable to certain resources.
Emissions rates of key resource options can be used to support scenarios associated
with carbon monetization or other emissions tracking that may be of interest to IRP
stakeholders as the IRP process is internalized.
The June 2015 updated National Electricity Sector Policy includes key assumptions
related to the cost of LNG infrastructure, the cost of future resource options, and the
extent of DSM participation that can be benchmarked to the results of the IRP in the
iterative fashion envisioned as part of the plan.
As noted above, all of these tactics are embedded in the IRP process and consequently,
there is no additional structure contemplated to be needed in order to be in alignment
with the updated policy. The public commentary and challenge mechanisms envisioned
by the policy that will involve IPPs as well as the public are best fostered through the
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report) and the IRP reporting structure used
in this report for the 2016 IRP.
It should be noted that the policy also requires a procurement plan as defined within the
boundary of the IRP. Once the IRP is completed, a detailed procurement strategy and

1-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

plan should be developed around the resources that are selected within the IRP for
downstream consideration. BELCO has already engaged in scoping certain limited
procurement activities (e.g., battery storage request for proposals (RFP) process, LNG
facility feasibility study) that can be leveraged to provide procurement guidance across
the entire portfolio. Refer to Section 3 of this report for further details regarding the
proposed procurement plan as suggested by the results of the IRP.

1.4 Load Forecast


Leidos has reviewed BELCOs net energy for load (NEL) and system peak demand
data, generally over the period 2005 through 2015. We have also reviewed the 2015
Ministry of Finance National Economic Report, as well as supplemental data regarding
the trajectory of key industries within Bermuda and their impact on overall economic
activity in the territory. Our review has comprised two parallel efforts, namely (i)
weather normalization of historical data in an effort to quantify the impact of weather
variability on BELCOs load and (ii) review of economic data and projections to
develop a perspective regarding the Load Forecast, including the determination of
assumptions related to uncertainty over the Study Period. Our review has resulted in
conclusions within each realm of analysis, as well as a long-term Load Forecast. The
Load Forecast is predicated upon a reasonable approach underpinned by an econometric
analysis framework that has produced monthly econometric models for BELCOs NEL
and system load factor and a methodology for characterizing load uncertainty. Section
4 of this report contains more specific details regarding the range of activities involved
in developing the load forecast.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-7


Section 1

Figures 1-2 and 1-3 below summarize the results of the load forecasting process.

Figure 1-2 Energy Forecast (GWh)

Figure 1-3 Peak Demand Forecast (MW)

1-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

As evidenced by Figures 1-2 and 1-3 above, the Base Case load forecast reflects a long
term growth rate of approximately 0.3 percent per year. The High and Low Cases are
intended to capture the majority of the potential future range of economic activity on
Bermuda, based on an analysis of historical errors in representative economic forecasts.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while the Low
Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-term rate of
decline of 0.4 percent per year. As depicted above, the High and Low Cases reflect an
expanding amount of uncertainty in load levels over the forecast horizon driven from
increasing average errors in economic forecasts of longer horizons. See Section 4 for
further details the regarding the load forecast methodology, data sources, and
assumptions.

1.5 Fuel Forecast


Leidos engaged in the development of a detailed fuel delivery forecast model for each
of the main candidate fuels in the IRP. The purpose of this detailed fuel model was to
expand and enhance the transparency of the fuel forecast and compartmentalize the
components of the build-out, so as to allow BELCO a platform for review and in-depth
itemization of the aspects of the pricing. Appendix C of this report contains the most
recent vintage of the by-year fuel forecast for all key fuels, including the adjustment to
fuel adder costs based on feedback from BELCO. On a broad basis, the following list
describes the key steps involved in the development of delivered fuel price projections
as have been input into the downstream IRP production cost simulations (note: all line
items comprising the detailed fuel projection can be found in Appendix C of this report).
Leidos estimated the Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), Light Fuel Oil (LFO), propane gas
in containers and in bulk (LPG ISO, defined as LPG delivered from the on-island
LPG storage facility in ISO containers, and LPG Bulk 2), LNG ISO with bulk LNG
delivery to the island (Bulk LNG ISO") (reflects a bulk delivery commodity price
and on-island container delivery to customer site), LNG ISO 3 (defined as LNG
delivered from the on-island storage facility in ISO tanks) and LNG Bulk commodity
pricing to be commensurate with the updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) from
the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) for those fuels.
Perspectives in the AEO have been combined with recent period forward markets
information as extracted from New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
commodity price forecasts for near-term strips to better capture a blend between
short-term price fluctuations and long term price level expectations. This was of
particular importance for oil prices given recent period fluctuations in the downward
direction for this commodity. In addition, with regard to the LPG fuel pricing,
BELCO provided fuel delivery prices based on recent discussions with a major fuel
supplier.

2
LPG Bulk has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model for purposes of the Partial
Conversion LPG scenario defined later in this report.
3
LNG ISO has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model. This fuel is assumed to be
deployed only for modeling the CHP candidate resource at this time.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-9


Section 1

BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, recent actual fuel commodity price data
for HFO and LFO.
Leidos modeled certain critical fuel cost adders associated with delivered pricing for
Bermuda, including adders for throughput, freight and supply, customs import duty,
and Unesco Tax with regard to HFO and LFO based on data provided by BELCO.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, fuel supplier indicative commodity
pricing for LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel delivered to Bermuda. This supplier also
included fuel cost adders for the LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel supply. Leidos
modeled customs import duty and Unesco tax.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, updated fuel supplier indicative
commodity and delivery pricing for LNG Bulk Fuel delivered to Bermuda
(Potential Supplier Estimate). Leidos modeled customs import duty and Unesco
tax.
The estimated cost and schedule of the LNG infrastructure were developed on the
basis of input from the 2014 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Feasibility Study Report,
which reflected an LNG offloading facility, 10,000 m3 storage tank and
regasification facility infrastructure capital cost estimate of approximately $75M,
with scheduled completion in 2020.
Each of the adders, as well as other values that were provided by BELCO in dollars
per barrel or dollars per US gallon, have been converted to an all-in dollars per
MMBtu using the ratio of MMBtu of fuel per unit input based on Higher Heating
Value (HHV) specifications as provided by BELCO. These adder amounts were
then combined with the commodity price component to produce the final delivered
price forecast for each fuel. In general, cost adders have been escalated at inflation
over the Study Period.
Figures 1-4 and 1-5 below contain a summary of the core commodity component
(without any adders), as well as the all-in delivered price (with adders), respectively,
associated with all of the fuel forecasts prepared for evaluation purposes.

1-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

Figure 1-4 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast

Figure 1-5 Base Case Delivered Cost Forecast

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-11


Section 1

1.6 Financial and Other Planning Criteria


BELCO provided the following key financial factors for use in the cost analysis:
Inflation 2.25%.
Weighted Average Cost of Capital 9.75%.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital as provided by BELCO is predicated upon
achieving an optimal gearing ratio based on the existing regulatory structure in Bermuda
and is consistent with other international utility benchmarks. It should be noted that
discounted cash flow calculations across the IRP are predicated upon escalation of
nominal dollars over the course of the Study Period, and that production costs are
discounted back to todays dollars using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.
The capital cost escalation assumption is developed from future capital costs escalation
rates included in recent construction contracts, forecasts and information from IHS
Global Insight, Inc. (Global Insight) and Leidos experience in the industry. The
escalation adder used for future capital costs is equal to inflation for the duration of the
Study Period.
BELCOs total installed power generation capacity requirement is established on the
basis of maintaining the ability to meet the annual peak system load without contribution
from the three largest capacity generating units on the system and without serving the
system load component that is served by capacity from the Tynes Bay waste-to-energy
facility (i.e., Tynes Bay capacity can be thought of as a credit to the reserve margin
requirement). The application of this criteria results in a planning reserve margin that
is calculated by the formula:
RM = 3C TB
Where:
RM is the system planning capacity reserve margin (MW)
3C is the total capacity of the three largest generating units on the system (MW)
TB is the rated output capacity of the Tynes Bay facility (MW)
The capacity of the three largest units is used in the formula to simulate a situation where
the largest unit is out of service for planned maintenance, the second largest unit is out
of service for unplanned maintenance and the third largest unit is being operated to meet
the system spinning reserve requirement. BELCOs current operation protocol requires
sufficient spinning reserve to facilitate the instantaneous loss of the largest generating
unit with no resulting loss of load due to under frequency tripping of feeder circuits. For
the purpose of the formula, the Tynes Bay facility is regarded as a firm capacity
resource.
Based on the existing BELCO resource portfolio, the 2016 planning reserve margin was
established as follows:
RM = 3 x 14.3 4.5 = 38.4MW

1-12 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

During the production cost analysis, the dispatch to load model will calculate the annual
capacity reserve margin based on (i) the existing resources on the BELCO system,
reflective of retirements, capacity adjustments as a result of alternate fuel operation and
the planned expansion of Tynes Bay to an export capability of 4.5 MW in 2016, (ii) the
size and nature of resource options that are added, and (iii) the projected system peak
demand. The capacity reserve margin as a percentage of the total installed capacity will
fluctuate based on the capacity of the total installed capacity.

1.7 Existing Resources


Data regarding the operating cost, performance characteristics, and anticipated
retirement dates of all existing BELCO resources have been developed on the basis of
detailed interaction with and information provided by BELCO. Appendix B of this
report provides a full tabularization of all pertinent assumptions associated with
BELCOs existing asset base. Additionally, BELCO provided depreciation schedules
for existing assets to support the appropriate capture of early retirement depreciation
expenses for a limited number of resources as are assumed to be subject to early
retirement for certain production cost scenarios as described further below in this
section.
As is typically the case with remote non-interconnected electric utilities, BELCO must
plan to meet all of its systems power supply requirements, including contingencies,
from its local power generating resources. Over the years, BELCO has applied a least
cost generation planning approach to the selection of power generating resources and at
the current time, the Central Plant reflects a mix of slow speed diesel (SSD), medium
speed diesel (MSD) and combustion turbine (CT) generating units. In addition,
BELCO purchases the power generated by the Bermuda Government owned and
operated municipal waste incineration facility located at Tynes Bay. Based on the
operating economics of the various units, the SSD and MSD units that burn HFO and
the Tynes Bay Waste-To-Energy (WTE) facility are dispatched to cover the systems
base load, the MSD units that burn LFO are operated to meet the intermediate load and
the CT units are operated in a peaking mode. BELCO is projecting the retirement and
replacement of roughly 79.5 MW of existing generating capacity during the next five
years. Table 1-2 summarizes BELCOs existing generation mix.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-13


Section 1

Table 1-2
Existing Power Generating Resource Mix
FY 2014
No. of FY 2014 FY 2014 Percent of
Prime Generating Capacity Energy Capacity Total
Mover Fuel Type Units (MW) (GWh) Factor Energy
SSD HFO 2 23.4 137.1 67% 21%
MSD HFO 6 76.8 403.8 60% 62%
MSD LFO 5 30.5 72.6 27% 11%
CT LFO 7 42.5 23.7 6% 4%
Municipal
WTE Waste 1 1.6 12.5 89% 2%
System 21 174.8 649.7 100%
____________
Key: SSD Slow Speed Diesel WTE Waste-to-Energy
MSD Medium Speed Diesel HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
CT Combustion Turbine LFO Light Fuel Oil

1.8 Demand-Side Resource Options


DSM resource options can include a variety of measures, including demand response
(which can involve certain rate mechanisms such as time of use rates),
conservation/behavioral programs, energy efficiency (EE), and direct load control.
Leidos has worked with BELCO to parameterize a residential solar-thermal water heater
option that is paired with PV as a measure that BELCO has been contemplating and
which has been evaluated as a specific measure in this IRP. The approach to
development of the assumptions for this measure was as follows:
Hourly profiling for the solar thermal water heater system was developed based on
weather data purchased from Weather Analytics, LLC, which provided Typical
Meteorological Year (TMY) 2 (or 15-year based normalized hourly weather) for
Bermuda. This data was coupled with two models to produce an hourly profile of
energy draw (negative) or avoided grid energy (positive), the net of which resulted
in annual energy for the incremental installation. Demand impacts were estimated
based on an analysis of estimated hourly grid avoided demand during the hour of the
BELCO system peak.
The modeling for the hourly profile was a function of the combination of two
separate tools as follows:
The first tool is the System Analyzer Model (SAM), as developed by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through a relationship with
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The second tool is called RET-Screen. This is also a publically available tool
developed by Natural Resources Canada that contains built-in equipment
specifications, including make/model numbers.

1-14 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

The Leidos team utilized the combination of these two tools to derive the hourly
profile used in this analysis.
Various combinations of solar thermal paired with solar PV were designed and
ultimately, a solar thermal pairing with 1,060 watt direct current (DC) PV panels
was selected as the demand side resource candidate. Hourly energy modeling has
been conducted as denoted above to reflect the estimated annual energy that can be
expected from the updated PV panel rating.
The capital cost of a solar thermal water heater system paired with a 1,060 watt PV
panel, which is the sole option retained for IRP modeling purposes, was estimated
by BELCO, and is inclusive of costs associated with monitoring potential pilot
deployments.
Leidos assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty for the mechanical
equipment and modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters. Leidos estimated the
overall fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) over the life of the installation;
those costs are subject to significant uncertainty, and could be as much as two or
three times the base estimate. In addition, Leidos accounted for cost contingency
associated with US mainland versus BELCO cost.
Appendix B of this report provides a complete set of assumptions related to the solar
thermal water heater system. The peak demand and energy impact of this system has
been netted out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-side
resources in a scenario involving DSM, and the cost has been added to the dispatch
analysis as a discrete cost. Uptake of the program is based on information provided by
BELCO.
Based on detailed discussions with the BELCO team, it was determined that in addition
to the solar-thermal paired with PV option discussed above, and in alignment with the
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy, a generic block of additional EE
amounting to an incremental annual achievement of 0.5 percent of BELCOs load, or a
total of 10 percent of load abated through EE by the end of the Study Period, should be
considered as part of the IRP. A more aggressive DSM achievement totaling 1.0 percent
incremental abatement over the first half of the study period was also desired.
As the exact nature and extent of the programs associated with the future downstream
DSM portfolio cannot be known until a DSM program is funded and audits can be
conducted at strategic locations in order to assess technical potential for a range of
programs, it was necessary to develop a planning-level estimate of the costs to design,
deploy, and manage a generic DSM portfolio that can achieve the incremental impacts
desired to be evaluated as part of the IRP. It should be noted that the specific programs
in a given bundle will ultimately drive cost, and that there is a large variation in cost as
a function of the stage at which a program is currently operating; as the low hanging
fruit measures are gradually adopted, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult
for the utility to endorse additionally successful measures that are cost effective.
Consequently, the cost curve for EE (which is the key component of DSM contemplated
herein) programs as a bundle is initially less expensive and gradually escalates to a much
higher cost, particularly assuming incremental achievement in the range of 0.5 percent

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-15


Section 1

to 1 percent per year, or as much as 10 percent to 20 percent of current peak demand


ranges over 20 years.
Leidos conducted a targeted meta-analysis of existing literature regarding DSM costs.
The existing literature reflects a vast range of reported costs across programs as a
function of the various stages of program development for best-in-class programs as
compared to programs that are in earlier stages of maturity, as well as due to the
challenges related to apples to apples data sources and reporting. Leidos focused on
more recent sources in our review, generally avoiding literature produced prior to 2012.
In addition to sources internal to projects with which Leidos is familiar, as well as a
high-level cost estimate of the Suggested Initial DSM Programs outlined in Section 4
of this report, the additional recent sources for cost information are as follows:
A May 2014 Report produced by Long Island Power that summarized recent
Efficiency Long Island program costs.
An April 2013 report by the National Resources Defense Council, which reported
cost per MWh saved statistics in the state of Michigan for two utilities as compared
to leading states (NSTAR in Massachusetts and the Efficiency Vermont program).
A February 2013 report by the Public Service of Vermont that provided longitudinal
data on program costs over the period 2002-2011.
A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory that meta-
analyses the cost of saved energy across the residential, commercial, and low income
retail classes across US states.
A March 2015 report by the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
on the average cost reported by public utility programs in the state over the
2013/2014 fiscal year.
Two separate studies conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy in Texas and in Colorado on specific utility bundles of programs.
Based on this collective research, which includes program costs associated with other
Leidos projects as well as the suggested initial DSM programs described in the sub-
section below, we have estimated an all-in cost in $/MWh for the generic EE block.
Table 1-3 represents planning-level annual costs of a generic bundle at incremental
achievements of 0.5 percent and 1 percent per year up to a maximum of 10 percent. As
noted above, we have structured the cost estimate such that incremental achievements
in DSM uptake become gradually more expensive as the Study Period progresses given
that the utility is anticipated to pursue lower-hanging fruit measures up front and work
to expand the DSM program over time. The DSM costs estimated reflect a long-range
view of the cost of measures wherein costs are shown as amortized over an assumed
average measure useful life of 7 years. It is critical to note that these costs are not
associated with any given measure and that specific measure lives will vary once the
portfolio is actually defined. The main intent of the values shown is to indicate that DSM
measures have longitudinal benefits that accrue over the life of the measure, and
consequently, one view of implied costs could be based on spreading the cost to
implement a given measure over that measures useful life. Such considerations will be
made when evaluating DSM in a holistic fashion with the context of a given scenario.

1-16 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

Table 1-3
Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh)

Total Achievement
@0.5% Per Year for 20 Equivalent Level Total Achievement Equivalent Level
Year Years Cost ($/MWh) @1.0% for 10 Years Cost ($/MWh)
1 0.5% 40.18 1.0% 47.95
2 1.0% 47.95 2.0% 58.54
3 1.5% 49.05 3.0% 71.46
4 2.0% 58.54 4.0% 84.47
5 2.5% 59.88 5.0% 98.84
6 3.0% 71.46 6.0% 114.93
7 3.5% 73.11 7.0% 133.07
8 4.0% 84.47 8.0% 153.63
9 4.5% 86.42 9.0% 176.96
10 5.0% 98.84 10.0% 203.48
11 5.5% 101.11 10.0% 209.58
12 6.0% 114.93 10.0% 215.87
13 6.5% 117.57 10.0% 222.35
14 7.0% 133.07 10.0% 229.02
15 7.5% 136.13 10.0% 235.89
16 8.0% 153.63 10.0% 242.96
17 8.5% 157.17 10.0% 250.25
18 9.0% 176.96 10.0% 257.76
19 9.5% 181.03 10.0% 265.49
20 10.0% 203.48 10.0% 273.46
Section 4 of this report provides a more detailed discussion regarding the initially
suggested DSM programs, which reflect measures in both the residential and
commercial sectors. Refer to Section 3 of this report for results associated with the set
of IRP scenarios, which includes DSM considerations.

1.9 Supply-Side Resource Options


The approach to estimating cost and performance characteristics of the range of feasible
supply-side resource options for the IRP consisted of the following overarching
activities:
Capital and operating costs made available by BELCO were reviewed by Leidos as
a guide towards resource parameterization.
Leidos existing relationships with vendors was leveraged to obtain up-to-date
resource cost estimates and performance information.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-17


Section 1

Existing feasibility studies for certain resources that were previously commissioned
by BELCO or the Bermuda government informed estimates of performance and cost,
as appropriate.
In certain limited cases, data from prior procurements also informed the development
of cost and performance assumptions.
Missing or otherwise unavailable cost and performance assumptions were developed
either by BELCO or by the Leidos independent engineering team, the latter estimates
being predicated upon our prior industry experience with similar technologies.
For any conversions of existing assets to alternative fuel types, Leidos partnered with
BELCO to develop conversion cost estimates, as well as to determine which of the
existing units was incapable of a particular conversion.
Resources that were deemed infeasible due to a lack of proven prior deployment,
prohibitive cost, or other logistical fatal flaw were not included in the downstream
LCOE or production cost modeling, but were addressed as part of a supplemental
discussion document describing the current state of each technology in alignment
with revisiting such resources in a future iteration of the IRP.
Section 4 of this report provides a resource-by-resource description of the approach to
development of assumptions for each of the supply-side resource options considered in
the IRP. Additionally, Leidos has prepared a dispatch to load model case matrix that is
included as part of Appendix D of this report that assigns each of the resource options
to a particular production cost case (cases are described later in this section).

1.10 Levelized Cost of Energy Screening


As an initial step in the IRP quantitative analysis process, Leidos performed an LCOE
screening to assess, on a preliminary basis, the economic competitiveness of the
conversion of existing generating units as well as power supply technology options that
are considered to be feasible candidates for BELCO at this time. The LCOE is
calculated as a stream of equal $/MWh payments, normalized over the expected energy
production period for the resource, that would result in the recovery of all production
costs, including financing and a specified return on investment, over an assumed
financial life.
The three basic cost components of the LCOE calculation are as follows:
Fixed costs, such as initial project investment and fixed operations and maintenance
costs. These costs are provided in the tables of Appendix B.
Variable costs, such as variable operations and maintenance and fuel costs. Variable
operations and maintenance costs are provided in the tables of Appendix B. Fuel
costs are provided in Appendix C. The fuel costs used in the LCOE calculations
include customs duty as currently applied by the government of Bermuda.
Financing costs, such the cost of debt and the cost of capital. These assumptions are
provided in Section 1.6 (note: capital costs for resource options can be found in
Appendix B of this report).

1-18 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

In addition, the expected annual energy production is required as a fourth component of


the LCOE calculation. For each resource, the LCOE is calculated over the range of
capacity factors (in 5 percent increments) that the resource is expected to operate.
The results of the LCOE screening exercise are presented in graphical form for ease of
making comparison among the resources. The results of the LCOE screening informed
the construction of the production cost cases described further below in this section.
Refer to Section 3 for graphical output summarizing the results of the LCOE screening.

1.11 Production Cost Modeling


The dispatch to load modeling was performed using the PROMOD platform. The
analysis focused on a series of pre-defined cases, which are delineated fully further
below in this subsection.
The dispatch to load modeling utilized as inputs the cost and performance characteristics
of existing resources as well as all of the candidate resources which were made available
to serve load for the respective cases evaluated. As appropriate for a given case, loads
were represented as net of all DSM impacts (excluding CHP for which the supply side
load projection was adjusted in those cases where CHP is included as a resource as
defined below), after which the expansion path inclusive of DSM was finalized. The
model added resources to serve load as a function of capacity and energy needs given
the anticipated retirement schedule for existing resources, as well as meeting the reserve
margin requirement discussed previously in this section. Costs associated with DSM
resources (including CHP) were added to the production cost simulation results as
discrete costs based on the combination of DSM activities estimated to be undertaken,
combined with the estimated adoption rates/uptake by measure. In the same manner,
the costs associated with the battery option were added to the production cost simulation
results as discrete costs.
Candidate utility scale renewable energy resources were forced in to the dispatch
profile as as available energy based on dispatch profile estimates. Transmission and
distribution costs associated with renewable integration were included in the cost
estimate for these specific cases, as appropriate. Refer to Section 4 and the appendices
of this report for further details regarding cost assumptions and the specific resources
included in a given case.

1.11.1 Production Cost Cases


Case Definitions
Based on discussions with BELCO and the sum total of work conducted as delineated
in this report, the following cases are the subject of the production cost modeling, as
predicated on Base Case 4 assumptions across each of the inputs to the IRP (e.g., load,
fuel). It is important to note that while the definitions below capture certain decisions
which were prescribed, or deterministic in nature, all of the potential resources

4
The BESS system will be modeled at the low end of capital cost estimates (i.e. minus 15%).

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-19


Section 1

considered in each case are defined. Some resources included in a case definition
ultimately may not have been modeled within a case as a result of evaluating the LCOE
tool results, among other indicators.
1. Business As Usual (Fuel Oil Case) this case is predicated upon the
following:
a. addition of traditional (liquid fuel oil-fired resources) to replace
existing resources based on assumed retirement dates
b. the capacity expansion will serve load in a manner that minimizes
long term production cost given the available resources in each year
c. BESS resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct
feedback from BELCO
d. CHP resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct
feedback from BELCO
2. Energy Policy Aspirational Mix Case this case is based on a prescribed
set of resource additions that will attempt to mirror, as closely as possible,
the aspirational mix of generation promulgated by the June 2015 National
Energy Policy as released by the Bermuda Government. With respect to the
generic renewable resource that remains undefined, the IRP relies upon the
simplifying assumption that such resource will be equivalent in cost to a
natural gas resource addition in the year in which the policy assumes that the
generic renewable resource will be added. This allows for the modeling of a
generic renewable resource with the same characteristics as the natural gas
option parameterized herein.
3. Preliminary Least Cost Case this case reflects the preliminary least cost
combination of resources as determined by the production cost model as a
function of various simulations of combinations of resources.
4. Full Conversion LNG Case with Renewables and DSM this case is
predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply
to Bermuda, including a pipeline for delivery of natural gas to the
existing central utility plant site and LNG pricing commensurate with
the Potential Supplier Estimate provided to Leidos by BELCO
b. the conversion of certain existing units to operate on LNG
i. the conversion of units E5, E6, E7, and E8
ii. the conversion of units GT5, GT6, GT7, and GT8
c. June 2018 Commission Phase 1 (N1-N3) of North Power Station
(NPS) installation of 3 DF units
i. Initial operation on HFO until conversion to natural gas
(LNG) in 2020

1-20 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

ii. Facilitates the retirement of entire old power station (D3, D8,
D10 and early retirement of D14, D15) and units E1 & E2 in
June 2017
d. January 2020 Commission Phase 2 (N4) of NPS installation of 1
additional DF unit
i. Facilitates the retirement of units E3&E4 in 2019
e. potential new supply side resources operating on LNG of a CT or CC
type to be located at the existing central utility plant site
f. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
g. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
h. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems
screened out due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out
at 25 cents per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end
of the Study Period and installed in annual increments of
1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20
year horizon
5. Business as Usual (Fuel-Oil Case) with Renewables and DSM this case
is predicated upon the following:
a. Same capacity expansion options for thermal resources as Case 1
b. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
c. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
d. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems
screened out due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out
at 25 cents per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end
of the Study Period and installed in annual increments of
1MW each beginning in 2019

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-21


Section 1

iii. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20


year horizon
6. Partial Conversion LPG with Optimized Renewables and DSM this case
is predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LPG supply
to Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to
accommodate the installation of approximately 60 MW of LPG-
fueled generation resources at a new site, co-located with the LPG
storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of certain existing units:
i. GT 5, 6, 7 & 8 remain on LFO
ii. E5-E8 remain on HFO operation until retirement
c. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
d. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
e. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems
screened out due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out
at 25 cents per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end
of the Study Period and installed in annual increments of
1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20
year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to
supplement items in (a)
7. Partial Conversion LNG with Renewables and DSM this case is
predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply
to Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to
accommodate the installation of approximately 50 MW of LNG-
fueled generation resources at a new site, co-located with the LNG
storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of any existing units:
c. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
d. Utility Scale PV (with a capacity of 28 MW-DC (25 MW-AC))

1-22 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

i. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)


e. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems
screened out due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out
at 25 cents per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end
of the Study Period and installed in annual increments of
1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20
year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to
supplement items in (f)

Definition of Final Cases and Additional Desired Sensitivities


In addition to the Reference Case (Case 1), the Four Finalist Cases 5 subjected to the
sensitivities defined below are as follows:
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 4)
Fuel Oil Case (lowest production cost Fuel-Oil expansion plan) (Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG Case (logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG Case (logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 7)
The sensitivities applied to the selected cases are defined as follows:
1. Fuel Cost (based on 2015 EIA AEO range) based on discussions with BELCO,
High Fuel Price and Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on
AEO scenarios that represent the highest and lowest commodity price for each
commodity that underpins the fuel in question. As discussed further in Section
4.8, the scenario that represents the High Fuel Price Case for LFO, HFO, LPG,
and LNG is the 2015 AEO High Oil Case; the Low Fuel Price Case is based on
the AEO Low Oil Case for HFO, RFO, and LPG but is based on the AEO High
Resource case for LNG.
2. Carbon Monetization Leidos has researched an updated March 2016 report
from Synapse that captures a revised view on potential carbon prices this
reports pricing is applied to each production cost models results on the back

5
Per discussions with BELCO, the Four Finalist Cases were selected from the ranking based on the
levelized cost results and were subjected to sensitivity scenarios.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-23


Section 1

end, in addition to reporting related to the actual tons of carbon emitted for each
case.
3. WACC The IRP evaluates 10.5 percent as the high case (reflecting more
upside risk on interest rates and potentially less gearing with less favorable
regulation) and 9.0 percent as the low case.
4. N-2 vs. N-3 This is self-explanatory; however, this sensitivity is NOT applied
to the Base/Reference Case, as there is no BESS considered in the
Base/Reference Case.
5. High and Low Load Forecast The IRP evaluated a High and Low forecast.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while
the Low Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-
term rate of decline of 0.4 percent per year.

1.12 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources


In order to provide a holistic evaluation of the supply-side and demand-side resources,
and to ensure that non-monetary factors that are critical to the success of the IRP but not
quantified in the load dispatch modeling are carefully considered, the IRP process
includes a qualitative evaluation of each candidate resource. The qualitative assessment
criteria used as a basis for the evaluation and the maximum scores that are allocated to
each criterion have been developed specifically for this IRP and reflect BELCOs
interpretation of their significance. The results of the qualitative evaluation were
considered together with the results from the quantitative analysis in arriving at the
recommendations for the action plan arising from this IRP exercise. The importance of
the qualitative assessment is highlighted in the consideration of renewable energy
resources for the preferred expansion plan to address BELCOs sustainability objective,
since the least cost plan based on the quantitative analysis may exclude these resources.
Descriptions of the criteria used for the qualitative assessment along with the maximum
scores allocated to each one is provided in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4
Qualitative Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description Score
Evaluate the degree to which the asset
enhances or reinforces system reliability
1 Supply Quality as a firm resource. 20

Evaluate the degree to which the asset


2 Environmental Sustainability will cause a reduction in the emission of
Green House Gases (GHG) from 20
electricity generation
Evaluate the degree to which the asset
contributes to resource/fuel diversity to
20

1-24 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP METHODOLOGY

Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description Score
3 Security and Cost Resilience make Bermuda resilient to shocks
caused by dramatic changes in the cost
and availability of fuel.
Evaluate the degree to which the asset
4 Logistics provides for ease of logistics and 20
implementation.
Evaluate the degree to which the asset
5 Economic Development contributes to the economic 20
development for Bermuda with a focus
on job creation.

Total Maximum Score 100

The results of the qualitative analysis are presented in Section 3 of this report. The total
scores gleaned from the qualitative analysis will be combined with the direct financial
implications of the dispatch cases and LCOE screening to inform the findings in this
report in terms of the resource plan that is deemed to be most attractive overall for
Bermuda. It is important to note that in some instances, qualitative factors will bolster
the relative standing of a given candidate resource, and in others, strictly economic
resources may score lower in certain categories as a reflection of BELCOs current
resource planning criteria.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-25


Section 2
Principal Assumptions and Considerations

2.1 Principal Assumptions and Considerations


The results of the IRP as delineated in this report must be interpreted in light of the
following principal assumptions and considerations. Refer to Section 4 of this report
for a comprehensive listing of assumptions in terms of specific values, approaches,
sources, and methodologies. In addition, this report has several appendices that detail
the results of the various precursory analyses necessary to complete the IRP. The
purpose of this section is not to re-summarize such inputs, but to shed light on key
considerations that may impact the results of our evaluations. These considerations are
as follows:
1. Unless specifically denoted in this report, all data taken as exogenous inputs to
the Leidos load forecasting framework, LCOE screening model, and load
dispatch model, including key financial and performance information related to
the existing asset base, or insights on future economic conditions provided by
the BELCO Team, or SMEs retained by either party, is assumed to be
appropriate for the purposes of this analysis. Leidos has not independently
verified the entirety of this data, and to the extent such assumptions deviate from
actual conditions, the results presented herein may concordantly vary.
2. Base-Case fuel projections are based on information regarding BELCOs
existing fuel component costs; information regarding BELCO
contractual/bid/indicative pricing information (as applicable); information
regarding short to medium term futures markets; and the 2015 EIA AEO. This
information is assumed to be appropriate for purposes of this analysis. Any
deviation from EIA forecasted prices or any fluctuations in BELCOs other fuel
component costs could materially impact the relative economic performance of
competing resources, and consequently, the findings in this report.
3. This evaluation does not constitute a technology optimization analysis. Leidos
did not review alternative combinations of technologies relative to the given
future site or sites for deployment to determine if a given technology was the
best available technology given site conditions or other factors, which are
beyond the scope of this analysis. The IRP has been conducted with a level of
rigor commensurate with the expectation that more detailed feasibility studies
associated with the chosen resource portfolio/expansion path would be
conducted to further evaluate siting issues. Leidos has provided additional
support related to the capital cost estimate and siting feasibility associated with
the onshore LNG infrastructure solution, which is subject to further study and
refinement. Leidos has also preliminarily provided review of potential PV sites,
but this IRP is predicated upon the modeling of a range of generic PV options.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Section 2

4. The relationships posited by the econometric models developed to forecast long


term load growth have been assumed to perpetuate into the forecast period.
5. The capital and operating costs associated with the resource options considered
in this IRP have been subjected to review by Leidos subject matter experts. The
values derived for purposes of this IRP assume no significant changes in the
electric utility industry through the end of the Study Period other than those
assumed and set forth in this report. Due to uncertainties caused by variable
factors, including factors that influence the cost of all energy sources, we can
give no assurance either as to the reasonableness of the rates of escalation with
respect to fuel costs and operating costs. Additionally, changes in costs,
technology, legislation and regulation could affect the considerations and
assumptions herein, and it is possible that actual construction estimates for
options that are selected for deployment will differ from those assumed herein.
In particular, future fuel cost and environmental factors could affect the
assumptions underpinning this analysis. In summary, any changes in costs,
technology, legislation and regulation could affect the considerations and
assumptions, which could impact the results of the analysis summarized herein.
6. The price for sale of CHP byproducts was assumed to be equal to the cost of gas
necessary to generate the equivalent amount of heat from the existing back-up
boiler. Given that there is currently no power purchase agreement in place
between BELCO and a viable off-taker, it is possible that the rates assumed for
purposes of this analysis may differ materially from actual rates resulting from
the ultimate agreement, which when finalized will codify prices, terms, and
conditions to off-take byproducts. The potential risks involved with byproduct
sales are herein noted and should be reviewed carefully.
7. A major overhaul of the CHP plant was assumed to not be necessary during the
Study Period, given that the average capacity factor estimated for the CHP
deployment does not result in the approximately 60,000 hour threshold for the
first major overhaul (this would occur subsequent to the end of the Study
Period).
8. Byproduct sales have been assumed to begin coincident with the commercial
operation date of the CHP asset, and concordantly, we have assumed that the
ultimate agreement between BELCO and the ultimate off-taker(s) will be fully
in place prior to the online date of the unit(s).
9. DSM assumptions regarding consumer uptake for distributed PV (both
commercial and residential), as well as the residential solar thermal program,
were based entirely on non-firm estimates of uptake provided by BELCO.
Further analysis regarding market demand for these types of deployments, as
well as alternative economic incentive models, should be the subject of
downstream feasibility studies associated with implementation of one or more
of such resource options.
10. The Base-Case analysis presented herein assumes no carbon tax in Bermuda
during the Study Period.

2-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Principal Assumptions and Considerations

11. Leidos has not reviewed the necessary permits or other compliance requirements
involved in construction of any of the supply-side resource options analyzed
herein; we have assumed that all permits will be procured in a timely manner
consistent with the anticipated online date assumed for each individual resource
option.
12. With regard to any sensitivities that reflect a reduction in operating reserve
margin (from n-3 to n-2), such sensitivities assume that any battery system that
may be installed to offset spinning reserves is not necessarily an appropriate
resource to also supplant operating reserves. However, such sensitivities are
predicated on the notion that new and clean thermal resources are generally
expected to be more reliable, which may allow a reduction in operating reserve
requirements relative to historical levels.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 2-3


Section 3
RESULTS

3.1 LCOE Results


Figure 3-1 below summarizes the results, on a NPV basis over the study period, of the
LCOE analysis and include in the fuel cost projections the import duty. The natural gas
resource options evaluated in the LCOE analysis are based on the full conversion of the
BELCO generating fleet to operate on natural gas.

Figure 3-1 NPV Summary of LCOE Analysis Results

As evidenced by Figure 3-1, baseload gas resources are generally less expensive than
baseload oil resources and are comparable to converted existing resources, the latter of
which can run on either LPG or natural gas. Additionally, renewable resources are
comparable in cost to traditional peaking thermal assets as the assumed capacity factor
increases, which is in part a function of the fact that such resources do not have any
variable costs of production. Utility-scale renewable resources were found, in general,
to be more cost-effective in this analysis than customer-sited renewables, primarily as a
function of the economies of scale inherent in larger installations. Certain demand-side
resources represent the upper end of cost (e.g., residential solar-thermal with PV
integrated options).

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Section 3

3.2 Modeling Results


Production cost modeling results are presented in Figure 3-2, Table 3-1, and Figure 3-
3. These exhibits characterize the most top-level results of the production cost modeling.
Figure 3-2 depicts the annual all-in $/MWh cost of each of the production cost cases
(Cases 1 through 7 as defined in Section 1) over the Study Period. Table 3-1 summarizes
the NPV of each case, and computes the delta (either positive or negative) of the NPV
relative to Case 1 (or the Reference Case). Figure 3-3 compiles the sum total of all
carbon emissions associated with each case over the entire Study Period into a bar chart
comparison. Figure 3-4 shows additional comparison of the carbon intensity, defined as
average CO2 emissions in pounds per megawatt-hour, of each case over the entire Study
Period. Note that MWh values are inclusive of energy abated, as applicable.

BELCO 2016 IRP


Summary of Estimated Production Cost ($/MWh) by Case
400

300
$/MWh

200

100

0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4


Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

Figure 3-2 Summary of Annual $/MWh Costs by Case

3-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


RESULTS

Table 3-1
Summary of Estimated Levelized Cost by Case ($/MWh)
Levelized Cost Difference from % Difference from
Case Reference Case (Case 1) Reference Case
($/MWh)
($/MWh) (Case 1)
Reference/BAU
213.65
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
214.65 1.01 0.5%
(Case 2)
Least Cost
188.59 (25.06) (11.7)%
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
202.67 (10.98) (5.1)%
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
213.00 (0.65) (0.3)%
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion
199.26 (14.39) (6.7)%
LPG (Case 6)
Partial Conversion
205.12 (8.52) (4.0)%
LNG (Case 7)

Comparison of Lifetime Carbon Emissions (Tons) (000) by Case


10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
Tons (000)

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

Figure 3-3 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Emissions by Case

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-3


Section 3

3.5

3.0

2.5
kg / kWh

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

Figure 3-4 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Intensity by Case

As evidenced by the figures above:


The least cost case (Case 3) is consistent with Case 6, the Partial Conversion LPG
case, but excludes renewables and the battery for spinning reserves.
From a carbon footprint perspective, the Aspirational Case (Case 2) performs best
relative to the reference case, followed by the LNG-centric cases, Case 4 and Case
7) and then the LPG cases (Case 3 and Case 6).
The energy mix of the Four Finalist Cases as well as Case 2 are presented in Tables 3-2
through 3-6 below for comparison to the Aspirational Mix (see Table 1-1) that was
defined in the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda released June
2015.

3-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


RESULTS

Table 3-2
Energy Supply Mix Aspirational Mix (Case 2)

Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036


HFO 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LFO 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 75.7% 64.7% 58.8%
Tynes Bay WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Wind 0.0% 9.0% 8.9% 8.6%
Future Renewables 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 11.6%
Distributed Solar Water Heating 0.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6%
Energy Efficiency 0.5% 2.9% 5.3% 9.7%
Commercial PV 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Table 3-3
Energy Supply Mix Full Conversion LNG (Case 4)

Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036


HFO 87.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LFO 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 85.6% 83.6% 79.8%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
Energy Efficiency 0.5% 2.9% 5.4% 9.8%

Table 3-4
Energy Supply Mix Fuel-Oil (Case 5)

Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036


HFO 87.6% 82.5% 79.1% 76.7%
LFO 8.3% 3.1% 4.5% 3.2%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
Energy Efficiency 0.5% 2.9% 5.4% 9.8%

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-5


Section 3

Table 3-5
Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6)

Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036


HFO 87.6% 16.9% 11.9% 3.8%
LFO 8.3% 2.6% 0.6% 1.3%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 7.0% 6.8% 6.7%
LPG 0.0% 59.2% 64.3% 68.2%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
Energy Efficiency 0.5% 2.9% 5.3% 9.7%

Table 3-6
Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7)

Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036


HFO 87% 23% 19% 18%
LFO 9% 5% 3% 0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0% 59% 63% 64%
Tynes Bay - WTE 4% 4% 3% 3%
Utility PV 0% 7% 7% 6%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0% 1% 1% 1%
Energy Efficiency 0% 2% 4% 7%

The resource expansion plans for the Four Finalist Cases are provided in Tables 3-7
through 3-10. The tables show the annual asset expansion and retirement plans by year
and include the surplus capacity balance and reserve margins that guided the
development of the expansion plans. These tables can be paired with the detailed
operations and cost data supplied in Appendix D for each case.

3-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


RESULTS

Table 3-7 Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Supply Side Resources Demand Side Resources
Existing Capacity New Capacity (Dependable) New Demand Side
Total Total Peak
Existing Supply Demand Demand
Capacity Total New Side Side Peak (Net of Reserve Surplus
Existing Capacity Retired Remaining Resources Added Capacity Capacity Resource Added Resources Demand DSM) Margin Capacity
Year (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 133.3 13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N1 * 45.0 178.3 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 30.9
11.2 E2 13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N2 *
13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N3 *
Battery Spin (12 MW)
3.0 Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 107.8 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW) 57.6 165.4 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 18.2
4.5 D14 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
7.0 D3 Battery Spin (12 MW)
7.0 D8 Battery Renew (3.0 MW)

2020 10.1 E3 4.5 150.9 155.4 0.54 EE / EC 4.6 110.7 106.1 35.4 13.9
9.5 E4 2.47 IC CHP
14.3 E5 - Refuel 13.3 IC_MSD Refuel (NG) E5
14.3 E6 - Refuel 13.3 IC_MSD Refuel (NG) E6
14.3 E7 - Refuel 13.3 IC_MSD Refuel (NG) E7
14.3 E8 - Refuel 13.3 IC_MSD Refuel (NG) E8
13.0 GT5 - Refuel 12.7 GT_Refuel (NG) GT5
4.5 GT6 - Refuel 5.2 GT_Refuel (NG) GT6
4.5 GT7 - Refuel 5.2 GT_Refuel (NG) GT7
4.5 GT8 - Refuel 5.2 GT_Refuel (NG) GT8
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2021 4.5 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 151.3 155.8 0.55 EE / EC 5.2 111.0 105.9 35.4 14.6
2022 4.5 13.3 IC_MSD (NG) N4 151.8 156.3 0.55 EE / EC 8.2 111.4 103.2 35.4 17.7
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 2.47 IC CHP
2023 4.5 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 152.3 156.8 0.55 EE / EC 8.7 111.7 103.0 35.4 18.4
2024 4.5 152.2 156.7 0.56 EE / EC 11.8 112.0 100.3 35.4 21.0
2.47 IC CHP
2025 4.5 152.0 156.5 0.56 EE / EC 12.3 112.4 100.1 35.4 21.1
2026 4.5 151.9 156.4 0.56 EE / EC 12.9 112.7 99.8 35.4 21.1
2027 4.5 151.7 156.2 0.57 EE / EC 13.4 113.1 99.6 35.4 21.2
2028 4.5 -12.7 GT_Retire (NG) GT5 138.9 143.4 0.57 EE / EC 14.0 113.4 99.4 35.4 8.6
2029 4.5 138.8 143.3 0.57 EE / EC 14.6 113.7 99.1 35.4 8.7
2030 4.5 138.6 143.1 0.58 EE / EC 15.2 114.1 98.9 35.4 8.8
2031 4.5 138.5 143.0 0.58 EE / EC 15.7 114.4 98.7 35.4 8.9
2032 4.5 138.4 142.9 0.58 EE / EC 16.3 114.8 98.4 35.4 9.0
2033 4.5 -13.3 IC_MSD Retire (NG) E5 143.2 147.7 0.59 EE / EC 16.9 115.1 98.2 40.4 9.1
-13.3 IC_MSD Retire (NG) E6
14.3 GT New (NG)
17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG)
2034 4.5 143.1 147.6 0.59 EE / EC 17.5 115.4 98.0 40.4 9.3
2035 4.5 143.0 147.5 0.59 EE / EC 18.1 115.8 97.7 40.4 9.4
2036 4.5 142.9 147.4 0.60 EE / EC 18.7 116.1 97.5 40.4 9.5

Notes:
* Converted to natural gas in 2020
PV - Dependable capacity is 60% of installed nameplate capacity and degrades at 0.8% annually
Battery for spinning reserve backup and battery for renewable support are not counted toward dependable capacity

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 3-7 Leidos, Inc.


Section 3

Table 3-8 Fuel-Oil (Case 5) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)

Supply Side Resources Demand Side Resources


Existing Capacity New Capacity (Dependable) New Demand Side
Total Total Peak
Existing Supply Demand Demand
Capacity Total New Side Side Peak (Net of Reserve Surplus
Existing Capacity Retired Remaining Resources Added Capacity Capacity Resource Added Resources Demand DSM) Margin Capacity
Year (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
2017 12.2 E1 154.7 - 154.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 7.2
11.2 E2
2018 131.3 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 17.0 148.3 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 0.9
3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW)
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 110.3 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 43.6 153.9 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 6.7
7.0 D3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW)
7.0 D8 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
Battery Spin (12 MW)
Battery Renew (3.0 MW)
2020 10.1 E3 90.7 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 58.2 148.9 0.54 EE / EC 2.1 110.7 108.6 38.4 1.9
9.5 E4 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2021 4.5 D14 86.2 14.3 GT New (LFO) 73.0 159.2 0.55 EE / EC 2.7 111.0 108.3 38.5 12.4
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2022 86.2 13.3 IC_MSD (NG) N4 73.5 159.7 0.55 EE / EC 3.2 111.4 108.1 38.5 13.1
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2023 86.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 74.0 160.2 0.55 EE / EC 3.8 111.7 107.9 38.5 13.8
2024 86.2 73.9 160.1 0.56 EE / EC 4.4 112.0 107.7 38.5 13.9
2025 86.2 73.7 159.9 0.56 EE / EC 4.9 112.4 107.5 38.5 13.9
2026 13.0 GT5 73.2 73.6 146.8 0.56 EE / EC 5.5 112.7 107.2 38.5 1.0
2027 73.2 73.4 146.6 0.57 EE / EC 6.0 113.1 107.0 38.5 1.1
2028 73.2 73.3 146.5 0.57 EE / EC 6.6 113.4 106.8 38.5 1.2
2029 73.2 73.2 146.4 0.57 EE / EC 7.2 113.7 106.6 38.5 1.3
2030 73.2 73.0 146.2 0.58 EE / EC 7.8 114.1 106.3 38.5 1.4
2031 14.3 E5 44.6 14.0 IC_MSD (HFO) 100.2 144.8 0.58 EE / EC 8.3 114.4 106.1 38.5 0.2
14.3 E6 13.3 IC_MSD (HFO)
2032 44.6 100.1 144.7 0.58 EE / EC 8.9 114.8 105.8 38.5 0.3
2033 44.6 99.9 144.5 0.59 EE / EC 9.5 115.1 105.6 38.5 0.4
2034 44.6 99.8 144.4 0.59 EE / EC 10.1 115.4 105.4 38.5 0.5
2035 44.6 99.7 144.3 0.59 EE / EC 10.7 115.8 105.1 38.5 0.7
2036 44.6 99.6 144.2 0.60 EE / EC 11.3 116.1 104.9 38.5 0.8

Notes:
PV - Dependable capacity is 60% of installed nameplate capacity and degrades at 0.8% annually
Battery for spinning reserve backup and battery for renewable support are not counted toward dependable capacity

3-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


RESULTS

Table 3-9 Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Supply Side Resources Demand Side Resources
Existing Capacity New Capacity (Dependable) New Demand Side
Total Total Peak
Existing Supply Demand Demand
Capacity Total New Side Side Peak (Net of Reserve Surplus
Existing Capacity Retired Remaining Resources Added Capacity Capacity Resource Added Resources Demand DSM) Margin Capacity
Year (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 133.3 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 21.9 155.2 0.54 EE / EC 3.3 110.0 106.7 43.0 5.5
11.2 E2 3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW) 1.87 IC CHP
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 112.3 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 53.4 165.7 0.54 EE / EC 3.8 110.4 106.5 47.6 11.5
7.0 D3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW)
7.0 D8 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
Battery Spin (12 MW)
Battery Renew (3.0 MW)
2020 10.1 E3 92.7 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 72.9 165.6 0.54 EE / EC 6.6 110.7 104.1 52.2 9.3
9.5 E4 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 1.87 IC CHP
2021 4.5 D14 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 73.3 161.5 0.55 EE / EC 7.2 111.0 103.9 52.2 5.4
2022 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 73.8 162.0 0.55 EE / EC 9.9 111.4 101.4 52.2 8.4
1.87 IC CHP
2023 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 74.3 162.5 0.55 EE / EC 10.5 111.7 101.2 52.2 9.1
2024 88.2 74.2 162.4 0.56 EE / EC 11.0 112.0 101.0 52.2 9.2
2025 88.2 74.0 162.2 0.56 EE / EC 11.6 112.4 100.8 52.2 9.2
2026 13.0 GT5 75.2 GT New (LPG) 87.6 162.8 0.56 EE / EC 12.2 112.7 100.6 52.2 10.0
2027 75.2 87.4 162.6 0.57 EE / EC 12.7 113.1 100.3 52.2 10.1
2028 75.2 87.3 162.5 0.57 EE / EC 13.3 113.4 100.1 52.2 10.2
2029 75.2 87.2 162.4 0.57 EE / EC 13.9 113.7 99.9 52.2 10.3
2030 75.2 87.0 162.2 0.58 EE / EC 14.4 114.1 99.6 52.2 10.4
2031 14.3 E5 46.6 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 105.8 152.4 0.58 EE / EC 15.0 114.4 99.4 52.2 0.8
14.3 E6
2032 46.6 105.7 152.3 0.58 EE / EC 15.6 114.8 99.2 52.2 0.9
2033 46.6 105.5 152.1 0.59 EE / EC 16.2 115.1 98.9 52.2 1.0
2034 46.6 105.4 152.0 0.59 EE / EC 16.8 115.4 98.7 52.2 1.1
2035 46.6 105.3 151.9 0.59 EE / EC 17.4 115.8 98.4 52.2 1.3
2036 46.6 105.2 151.8 0.60 EE / EC 18.0 116.1 98.2 52.2 1.4

Notes:
PV - Dependable capacity is 60% of installed nameplate capacity and degrades at 0.8% annually
Battery for spinning reserve backup and battery for renewable support are not counted toward dependable capacity

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-9


Section 3

Table 3-10 Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Supply Side Resources Demand Side Resources
Existing Capacity New Capacity (Dependable) New Demand Side
Total Total Peak
Existing Supply Demand Demand
Capacity Total New Side Side Peak (Net of Reserve Surplus
Existing Capacity Retired Remaining Resources Added Capacity Capacity Resource Added Resources Demand DSM) Margin Capacity
Year (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 144.5 3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW) 3.0 147.5 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 0.1
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 11.2 E2 133.3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW) 15.6 148.9 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 1.7
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
Battery Spin (12 MW)
Battery Renew (3.0 MW)
2020 7.0 D3 92.7 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 67.8 160.5 0.54 EE / EC 4.6 110.7 106.1 47.1 7.3
7.0 D8 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 2.47 IC CHP
7.0 D10 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG)
10.1 E3 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
9.5 E4
2021 4.5 D14 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 68.2 156.4 0.55 EE / EC 5.2 111.0 105.9 47.1 3.5
2022 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 68.7 156.9 0.55 EE / EC 8.2 111.4 103.2 47.1 6.6
2.47 IC CHP
2023 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 69.2 157.4 0.55 EE / EC 8.7 111.7 103.0 47.1 7.3
2024 88.2 69.1 157.3 0.56 EE / EC 11.8 112.0 100.3 47.1 9.9
2.47 IC CHP
2025 88.2 68.9 157.1 0.56 EE / EC 12.3 112.4 100.1 47.1 10.0
2026 13.0 GT5 75.2 14.4 GT New (ng) 83.2 158.4 0.56 EE / EC 12.9 112.7 99.8 47.1 11.4
2027 75.2 83.0 158.2 0.57 EE / EC 13.4 113.1 99.6 47.1 11.5
2028 75.2 82.9 158.1 0.57 EE / EC 14.0 113.4 99.4 47.1 11.6
2029 75.2 82.8 158.0 0.57 EE / EC 14.6 113.7 99.1 47.1 11.7
2030 75.2 82.6 157.8 0.58 EE / EC 15.2 114.1 98.9 47.1 11.8
2031 14.3 E5 46.6 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 99.7 146.3 0.58 EE / EC 15.7 114.4 98.7 47.1 0.5
14.3 E6
2032 46.6 99.6 146.2 0.58 EE / EC 16.3 114.8 98.4 47.1 0.6
2033 46.6 99.4 146.0 0.59 EE / EC 16.9 115.1 98.2 47.1 0.7
2034 46.6 99.3 145.9 0.59 EE / EC 17.5 115.4 98.0 47.1 0.9
2035 46.6 99.2 145.8 0.59 EE / EC 18.1 115.8 97.7 47.1 1.0
2036 46.6 99.1 145.7 0.60 EE / EC 18.7 116.1 97.5 47.1 1.1

Notes:
PV - Dependable capacity is 60% of installed nameplate capacity and degrades at 0.8% annually
Battery for spinning reserve backup and battery for renewable support are not counted toward dependable capacity

3-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


RESULTS

3.3 Sensitivity Analysis Results


Figure 3-5 summarizes the by year cost of each of the Four Finalist Cases, as well as
the Reference Case (defined as Case 1 of the 7 cases). This is a subset of the graph above
and reflects the lowest cost, logistically plausible version of each of the main thermal
options, inclusive of the other resource options as defined in Section 1. Table 3-11
summarizes the change in levelized cost in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh) over
the Study Period resulting from each of the sensitivities that were applied to the Four
Finalist Cases relative to the levelized cost estimated using base case conditions.

BELCO 2016 IRP


Summary of Estimated Production Cost ($/MWh) by Case
400

300
$/MWh

200

100

0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Case 1 - Reference Case 4 - LNG Full Conversion
Case 5 - Fuel Oil Case 6 - LPG Partial Conversion
Case 7 - LNG Partial Conversion
Figure 3-5 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs by Year vs. Reference Case

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-11


Section 3

Table 3-11
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given Sensitivity Scenarios)

Full Partial Partial


Fuel-oil
Sensitivity Conversion LNG Conversion LPG Conversion LNG
(Case 5)
(Case 4) (Case 6) (Case 7)

n-2 Reserve
(9.60)% 0.09% (5.73)% (2.90)%
Margin
High Fuel Case (22.54)% (3.28)% (20.05)% (17.28)%
Low Fuel Case 1.97% 1.85% 3.54% 3.12%
High Load
(9.08)% (0.87)% (8.67)% (5.87)%
Forecast
Low Load
(4.60)% 0.58% (3.99)% (1.64)%
Forecast
High Cost of
(4.07)% 0.16% (5.78)% (3.28)%
Capital
Low Cost of
(6.21)% (0.77)% (7.70)% (4.71)%
Capital
Low Carbon
(6.35)% (0.81)% (7.44)% (4.98)%
Monetization
Mid Carbon
(6.77)% (0.99)% (7.69)% (5.33)%
Monetization
High Carbon
(7.42)% (1.27)% (8.08)% (5.87)%
Monetization

Refer to a later subsection herein for a list of findings and conclusions resulting from
our analysis. Additionally, Appendix D contains detailed graphical and tabular results
for each defined case as well as the sensitivities applied, including capacity and energy
mix and balance, pro forma summaries of system cost, as well as by-unit operations and
cost summaries for both existing and new resources.

3.4 Qualitative Evaluation Results


Figure 3-6 below depicts the results of the qualitative analysis for the candidate resource
categories. A detailed qualitative evaluation matrix is provided in Appendix E.

3-12 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Energy Efficiency Battery Storage Utility Solar PV Thermal Distributed Solar Residential Solar Offshore Wind Thermal Thermal
/ Demand Side for Spinning with Battery Resources- PV Thermal and PV with Battery Resources - Fuel Resources
Management Reserve Storage Natural Gas / Storage Oil Liquefied
Fuel Oil Petroleum Gas

Supply Quality Environmental Sustainability Security and Cost Resilience Logistics Economic Development

Figure 3-6 Qualitative Scoring Results

The key takeaways from the results of the qualitative analysis are as follows:
The generic energy efficiency/demand-side management resource scored highest at
87.5 percent across all categories. This is a function of the fact that the measures
contemplated are environmentally sustainable, promote energy security and cost
resilience and are relatively easy to implement. Additionally, energy efficiency can
help to engender trust and goodwill between the utility and their customers.
The block of battery storage for spinning reserve has the next highest qualitative
score at 82.5 percent, as a result of very high marks across all evaluation factors,
other than economic development.
The block of utility solar PV, thermal resources utilizing natural gas as the primary
fuel, distributed solar PV, and residential solar thermal and PV have the next highest
qualitative scores, ranging between 60 and 70 percent.
Offshore wind, thermal resources operating on fuel oil, and the same burning LPG
fuel scored 50, 50, and 47.5 percent, respectively. The offshore wind scored low due
to poor supply quality and low economic development. Thermal resources scored
poorly because of the increased handling and transportation risks and the reduced
infrastructure requirement associated with LPG when compared with LNG, along
with low environmental sustainability.

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-13
Section 3

3.5 Findings and Conclusions


3.5.1 Evaluation Methodology
Leidos worked with BELCO to develop a method for computing a single ranking score
for each case composed of a quantitative and qualitative attribute. The quantitative
attribute is based on the economic analysis and is represented by the NPV result from
the ProMod analysis. The qualitative attribute is based on the results of the qualitative
evaluation. Both methods are discussed in detail earlier in this section of the Report.
The following discussion describes the methodology for computing a single ranking
score using a weighted scoring mechanism. The resulting case rankings are also
presented.
The quantitative attribute is computed by applying a percentage score to the results of
the economic evaluation. The case with the lowest base scenario NPV annual cost is
assigned a score of 100 percent and the scores assigned to the other cases are scaled
based on the respective NPV costs relative to the lowest cost base scenario. This score
constitutes the Raw Quantitative Score.
The qualitative attribute is comprised of two factors: (i) the proportion of energy
generated over the study period by resource type and (ii) the qualitative score of the
respective resource type. For each case, the long term average of the annual percent of
energy generation by resource type is computed over the study period. The sum-product
of the long term averages and the respective qualitative scores is then computed. The
qualitative scores of the cases are then normalized by computing the ratio of the
qualitative scores against the highest qualitative score. These normalized values
represent the Raw Qualitative Cost of each Case.
The Raw Quantitative Score and the Raw Qualitative Score are then combined using a
weighting of 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively. The resulting weighted score is
the case rank. The case rank is the comparative value used to identify the performance
of each case as compared to all othercases. Table 3-12 demonstrates the case rank across
all base scenarios. A detailed overall scoring table is provided in Appendix E.

3-14 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

Table 3-12
Summary of Case Overall Ranking

Weighted Weighted Total Combined


Case Quantitative Score Qualitative Score Score Rank
Reference/BAU
61.8% 23.0% 84.8% 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
61.5% 29.4% 90.9% 4
(Case 2)
Least Cost
70.0% 23.1% 93.1% 3
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
65.1% 30.0% 95.1% 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
62.0% 24.3% 86.3% 6
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG
66.3% 24.2% 90.4% 5
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG
64.4% 28.9% 93.3% 2
(Case 7)

In order to provide an indication regarding the sensitivity of the overall results to these
weights, Table 3-13 provides alternative case rankings reflecting varying weighting
factors for quantitative versus qualitative scoring, based on the Base Scenario results.
As shown below, the LNG cases (Case 4 and Case 7) score among the top 2-3 cases
across all weights shown. The Least Cost Case scores successively poorer as the
weighting between quantitative and qualitative scores approach parity, setting aside the
fact that this expansion plan does not meet a major objective of the June 2015 National
Policy Plan. Overall, the rankings are not particularly sensitive to the weights.

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-15
Section 3

Table 3-13
Sensitivity of Overall Ranking to Weighting Factors

Quantitative / Qualitative Weight

80/20 70/30 60/40 50/50


Case
Reference/BAU
7 7 7 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
5 4 3 3
(Case 2)
Least Cost
1 3 4 4
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
2 1 1 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
6 6 6 6
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG
4 5 5 5
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG
3 2 2 2
(Case 7)

3.5.2 Conclusions
Based on the totality of evaluations, assumptions, and dispatch analyses conducted for
purposes of the IRP, the details of which should be reviewed carefully, the following is
a list of findings and conclusions in the form of recommended actions and next steps
relative to the results:
1. The top two ranked cases reflect full and partial LNG conversion (Cases 4 and
7), respectively, as well as renewables, DSM and batteries. While the LNG
cases are more capital intensive than the other cases, they are in alignment with
the June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy and are likely to reflect lower
volatility of fuel supply relative to LPG or fuel oilcases. In addition, the full
conversion LNG case has the potential for natural gas to serve other uses in
Bermuda via a piped distribution network.
2. The third ranked case, the Least Cost (Case 3), reflects a partial conversion to
LPG with energy efficiency resources but no renewables. Accordingly, it
deviates from a major objective of the June 2015 Policy and is not a plausible
plan.
3. The fourth ranked case, the Aspirational Mix (Case 2), reflects the addition of
significant renewable capacity based on the assumption that future costs of
renewables would be similar to those of natural gas thermal resources. This case
provides estimated benefits relative to BAU conditions. Given the speculative
nature of the future renewable resource embedded in the aspirational mix,

3-16 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

BELCO should continue to monitor developments in renewable generation


options and work with the Government to refine this case in future IRP iterations
given updated information.
4. The differential in levelized cost across the cases relates primarily to: (i)
commodity price forecast for the candidate fuels; (ii) estimated cost of fuel
transport, storage and processing as necessary; and (iii) estimated capital and
operating cost for candidate resources.
5. The pace at which energy efficiency performance is pursued also drives some
small amount of levelized cost difference amongst cases, but in general, given
the long-term view and likely pursuit of low hanging fruit energy efficiency
measures, such initiatives can be expected to be cost-effective relative to
additional supply-side capacity expansion.
6. The battery for spinning reserve performs well in the LPG-centric case due to
the greater heat rate differential for the combined cycle units involved when
operating at minimum load versus maximum load. This is not the case in the
LNG or reference case, wherein the batterys overall financial performance is
not as attractive due to a far smaller heat rate differential during operation of the
reciprocating internal combustion engine generators.
7. The inclusion of a battery system for renewable support across all 7 cases (if
applicable) does not negate the overall cost benefits (or savings) of the two main
thermal expansion paths (i.e. LNG-centric and LPG-centric) relative to BAU
conditions. This is generally due to the contained nature of the cost of owning
and operating the battery system relative to the total costs of the overall power
supply portfolio, the fuel cost deltas and operational efficiencies of which drive
the majority of cost savings. Consideration should be given to installation of
battery systems that may be able to serve more than one function (spinning
reserve contingency in addition to support for intermittent renewable resources).
8. BELCO should continue to pursue a robust and well-defined energy efficiency
program that attacks low hanging fruit elements of conservation and energy
efficiency activities.. Actual market potential associated with an energy
efficiency portfolio will be significantly less than the technical or economic
potential of such programs, and consequently, a balanced approach to portfolio
evaluations that involve more detailed cost-benefit analysis of specific portfolio
elements should be undertaken. As evidenced by the expanding cost of the DSM
supply curve as additional incremental amounts of achievement are assumed, a
more explicitly defined portfolio of programs can help lower the cost of
incremental achievement. In response to a directive [EC/BEL-BRDIR-0316]
issued by current Regulator, the Energy Commission, during the development
of the 2016 IRP. BELCO identified that any realistic plan for Bermuda would
require an Achievable Potential Study (APS) that would determine Bermudas
specific achievable savings associated with an Energy Efficiency and Energy
Conservation Program.
9. Based on the qualitative performance of utility-scale solar, as well as the more
advantageous cost estimated for utility-scale solar as compared to the residential

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-17
Section 3

solar thermal and commercial distributed PV options, BELCO should pursue


further investigations regarding utility-scale options, either utility-sourced or via
a power purchase agreement (PPA) arrangement. Given the additional
benefits of PV that relate to sustainable resources and reduced emissions, this
resource should continue to be explored with more detailed feasibility studies
and/or a procurement process related to a solar PPA.
10. As part of the evaluation of the Four Finalist Cases, combined heat and power
(CHP) distributed generation utilizing a reciprocating engine was evaluated.
The sizing of the generating unit was based upon the electric demand load
requirements of a generic customer and the thermal recovery equipment sized to
maximize the thermal energy of the exhaust for providing domestic hot water
heating. The Full Conversion LNG Case, Partial Conversion LNG Case
(logistically plausible LNG expansion plan) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (logistically plausible LPG expansion plan), all retained as part of the Four
Finalist Cases, considered the use of CHP resources. Further detailed study
should be performed to assess the full range of benefits this type of resource may
provide.
11. As evidenced by the Annual Expansion Summary Plan for the Full Conversion
LNG-centric case in Table 3-7, there are certain years when the system surplus
capacity is relatively high, primarily as a result of (i) the nominal capacity of the
base load candidate resources used in the analysis and (ii) the addition of the
solar PV resources to meet the renewable energy target. If deemed necessary,
the rated capacity of the base load resources can be addressed during the request
for proposal (RFP) process when proposals can be invited for lower capacity
units as well as those included in the plan and the final decision made on the
basis of overall economics. Of course, the updated near-term system peak load
forecast must also be considered in making decisions related to the level of
surplus capacity.
12. With regard to the sensitivities performed, the following are the main
implications of such additional scenarios:
Fuel Price Scenarios: The fuel price scenarios resulted in the most
dramatic changes in the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases
compared with the other sensitivity scenarios. The Fuel-Oil Case (Case
5) becomes the lowest cost case in the Low Fuel sensitivity because the
price advantage of either LNG or LPG over oil is not great enough to
offset the additional capital required in the gas-centric cases. Conversely,
in the High Fuel sensitivity scenario, the LNG price advantage expands
and the Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) becomes the lowest cost
case.
Carbon Monetization Scenarios: These sensitivity scenarios do not
change the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases due to the
relatively low additional cost imposed by the monetization of carbon
relative to the total production costs. The monetization of carbon adds
from 2% (LNG Cases) to 6% (Oil Cases) to total productions costs. The

3-18 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

benefits of lower carbon emissions from the LNG-centric cases do not


fully overcome the lower fuel costs of the LPG-centric cases in these
sensitivities.
The Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (Case 6) were the lowest cost cases in the sensitivity scenarios
relating to cost of capital, reserve margin and load forecast.

The assumptions and analyses contained in this IRP should be revisited on a recurring
basis in order to reexamine changes in fuel markets and technologies over time. Leidos
has worked to craft a repeatable process that is predicated upon a warehouse of data on
existing assets, load, and other key assumptions that can be adjusted and reconfigured
as new information becomes available. The IRP process should be internalized within
BELCO and viewed as a study that is re-executed in the future to determine whether
any revisions to the long-term course of action suggested by the prior IRP are warranted
as a result of changes to fuel prices, infrastructure and generating unit costs, changes in
load expectations, or other key factors influencing the IRP results.

3.6 Procurement Plan


3.6.1 Procurement Plan Overview
The effective achievement of the objectives established by BELCO for the IRP process
is highly dependent on the successful acquisition and integration of resources in
accordance with the preferred capacity expansion plan (Preferred Plan) to be determined
by the IRP Regulatory approval process. This 5-year procurement plan outlines a
recommended series of activities related to the procurement approach on a resource
basis, the steps for which can be followed as a function of the resources that are retained
within the Preferred Plan as indicated by the entirety of the analyses comprising this
IRP (LCOE screening, production cost modeling of cases, and qualitative evaluation).
The procurement plan addresses those resource items with in-service dates that are
planned to occur during the first five years of the planning period and serves as a guide
for the next steps to be taken by BELCO on its continued quest to fulfill its load serving
obligations to customers.

3.6.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply


On behalf of the Ascendant Group, Leidos in partnership with CH-IV International,
performed a study to examine the feasibility of and develop cost estimates for providing
facilities associated with the offloading, storage and regasification of LNG at an existing
petroleum bulk storage facility in Bermuda. The study also included the development
of a conceptual plan for the installation of a pipeline for use in transporting natural gas
to the BELCO central plant facility. The required capacity of the LNG and gas pipeline
facilities was based on converting the existing thermal resources to natural gas operation
and including only natural gas-fired thermal candidate resources in the IRP process.
The study determined that it is feasible to develop a project to import bulk LNG and
provide natural gas in the required volume to the BELCO power plant. Capital and

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-19
Section 3

operating cost estimates for the associated facilities were used in developing the
projected delivered cost of natural gas for use in the IRP.
The estimated duration for the development of the LNG offloading, storage and
regasification facilities project is approximately 3.5 years from the commencement of
front end engineering design (FEED) activities. Thus, in order to achieve entry into
service of the facilities by January 1, 2020 as proposed in the IRP, FEED activities
should commence immediately, including the development of a detailed schedule of
activities with a view to developing a detailed project schedule based on current
information. Any delay in initiating the LNG facilities project is likely to adversely
impact the January 1, 2020 scheduled entry into service date as the construction of the
offloading, storage and regasification facilities are on the critical path.
One major element of the LNG supply project is the procurement of LNG commodity
and delivery in bulk by ocean tankers to the port in Bermuda. BELCO is exploring
sourcing LNG indexed to Henry-Hub from the United States or Caribbean region.
The conceptual design for the LNG supply project includes the co-location of a nominal
50 MW of base load natural gas-fired resource at the LNG storage site. This aspect of
the project requires additional assessment regarding potential issues such as the
availability and cost of the site and permitting requirements, prior to finalizing the
project definition and initiating procurement activities.

3.6.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Supply


Under the LPG fuel supply case, LPG would be delivered to Bermuda in bulk ocean
tankers and stored at an existing petroleum products bulk storage facility. Unlike the
LNG supply cases, a detailed feasibility study has not been undertaken to develop a
conceptual plan along with project development cost estimates. Should BELCO decide
to give this option further consideration, the first order of business would be to perform
such a study. The study would include the evaluation of an option to co-locate LPG
fired generating units at the storage facility. A LPG supply plan could leverage existing
on island petroleum storage capacity but additional storage capacity would be required
to support LPG for power generation.

3.6.4 Thermal Resources


Under the Full Conversion LNG fuel supply alternative, BELCO proposes to:
(i) continue operating the existing central plant thermal units on fuel oil until retirement
and (ii) select future thermal resources from candidates that are designed to burn natural
gas as the primary fuel and fuel oil as a secondary fuel and locate such units at the
existing central utility plant site and the site of the LNG offloading and storage facility.
Under the Partial Conversion LPG and LNG fuel supply alternatives, BELCO proposes
to: (i) continue operating the existing central plant thermal units on fuel oil until
retirement and (ii) select future thermal resources from candidates that are designed to
burn propane or natural gas (as applicable) and collocate such units at the site of the
LPG or LNG offloading and storage facility.

3-20 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

As a result of previous generating plant procurement exercises, BELCO has developed


a comprehensive shortlist of engineer, procure and construct (EPC) contractors for
CT and RICE technologies. This shortlist should be reviewed and amended as
appropriate to establish a list of invitees for participation in the request for proposals
process. BELCO will engage the services of an owners consulting engineer to provide
assistance in areas such as: Plant specification and RFP preparation, proposal
evaluation, and construction monitoring.

3.6.5 Utility Scale Solar PV


BELCO anticipates that the utility scale solar PV resource will be procured through an
RFP process that will be conducted under the auspices of the government of Bermuda.
The selected developer for the project will own and operate the plant, as an Independent
Power Producer (IPP), and supply power to BELCO in accordance with the terms of
a power purchase agreement. Any energy storage equipment that is required to address
the intermittency of the solar PV resource will be specified in the RFP and provided by
the developer..

3.6.6 Battery Energy Storage


BELCO plans to engage the services of an engineering consultant with subject matter
expertise in battery energy storage systems (BESS) to facilitate the procurement of
the battery system to serve as spinning reserve for the electric system instead of
operating a thermal unit for that purpose. Additionally, a BESS for renewable support
is contemplated. Activities that will be undertaken by the consultant in conjunction with
BELCO related to both types of battery systems include:
Review Information Compiled by the BELCO Working Group
Prepare BESS Technical Specifications and RFP Package
Prequalify Bidders
Facilitate RFP Process
Prepare Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate Proposals
The estimated duration of the procurement exercise leading to an EPC contract award
is approximately six months, and the EPC contract execution period is estimated to be
ten to twelve months.

3.6.7 CHP
BELCO plans to locate an as yet undefined and currently generically parameterized
CHP resource at a major commercial customers site such as a large hotel where the
electric power output would supply a portion of the customers electric load and a waste
heat recovery component would provide thermal energy in support of space heating and
domestic hot water requirements. A broad outline of the steps that would be undertaken
by BELCO as a part of the procurement process for this resource are as follows:

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-21
Section 3

Evaluate and Shortlist Candidate Customers


Perform Detailed Feasibility Study and Develop Design Concept and Estimated
Capital and Operating Costs
Execute Agreement with Host Customer
Execute RFP Process and award EPC Contract
Monitor Project Construction and Commissioning

3.6.8 Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation/Demand Side


Management
The typical activities that are necessary to support the development of an EE & EC/DSM
Program Plan include the following:
Data Gathering and Goal Refinement
Demand Response System Interface Requirements (to the extent demand response
is considered as a portfolio item)
EE & EC/DSM Program Measure Assessment
Funding Analysis
Monitoring and Verification
Additional Resources and Change Management Plan
Communication & Stakeholder Engagement Activities
Final Program Plan
Ongoing Implementation Support
In accordance with a directive from the regulator, BELCO intends to submit a plan to
collaborate with key stakeholders in order to implement an EE & EC/DSM program.

3.6.9 5 MWac Solar PV Power Purchase Agreement


The procurement and negotiation of a PPA for distributed solar PV, which is similar in
nature to the battery energy storage system process, should generally comprise the
following key activities:
A Request for Information (RFI) or equivalent outreach process should be
engaged in that will help BELCO identify interested potential bidders to the
request for proposal (RFP) process. This RFI will afford BELCO and other
stakeholders the opportunity to raise several high level questions that can help
filter out credible bidders based on their responses to technical, logistical, siting,
and financial terms and conditions that would need to be considered when
negotiating an actual contract for output.
A technical specification should be developed that highlights the available
and/or preferred siting and other key technical nuances related to third party

3-22 Leidos, Inc. _


2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS

construction that falls outside of the terms and conditions of the PPA
arrangement.
A draft PPA should be prepared that outlines BELCOs preferred terms and
conditions for pricing and scheduling of energy delivery, as well as the key legal
and financial terms and conditions associated with the agreement, including
damages in the event of default, force majeure conditions, and all other standard
terms and conditions. Starting with a preferred PPA will help bidders understand
how they can best align their products and pricing with the desired terms, and is
a relatively standard approach to procurement. While this is not a guarantee that
the ultimate terms will completely align with the template, it will serve as an
appropriate starting point for discussions.
A detailed RFP document should be prepared that includes such information as:
desired timelines for project delivery; detailed bid forms; the aforementioned
draft PPA template, as well as any other terms and conditions related to
communications; questions related to the RFP; the availability or possibility of
pre-bid meetings; and the desired path towards interviews with potential
proponents (if deemed necessary).
The RFP responses should then be reviewed for completeness and compliance.
Typically, minimum compliance standards related to the documentation
provided as requested in the RFP as well as the criteria for a complete and
credible bid may result in certain bids being deemed non-responsive. BELCO
can reserve the right to engage in follow-up questions with bidders as part of the
evaluation process. In parallel, the RFP responses can be reviewed based on
evaluation criteria (which are likely to extend beyond mere pricing
considerations and should carefully evaluate bidder credibility and ability to
deliver on promised outcomes based on a holistic evaluation). The evaluation
criteria may or may not be specified to bidders as part of the RFP submittal.
As with the battery procurement, a general timeline for the procurement process is
estimated to be six months, with the actual contract negotiation and execution phase
taking an additional 12 months. It should be noted that the sum total time beyond the
contract execution phase would likely involve the construction of new PV capacity
within Bermuda to support the PPA, the duration of which would impact the timing
associated with actual availability of output from the project supporting the PPA.

_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-23
Section 4
IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

4.1 Introduction
This Section presents a summary of the key assumptions, in the form of a standalone
IRP technical assumptions document (the Assumptions Document), that are used in
developing the IRP. The purpose of the Assumptions Document is to provide sufficient
detail on the data sources and analytical approach to each aspect of the 2016 IRP that
must be completed prior to the onset of detailed dispatch modeling. By codifying all of
the core inputs in advance of the detailed modeling, rework and resulting project delays
can be minimized. In addition, this document serves as a platform for additional
feedback from BELCO on any desired adjustments relative to each IRP aspect. Given
BELCOs desire to institutionalize the IRP process and periodically revisit the IRP in
the future, the Assumptions Document serves as a living document that can be updated
and refined in future planning cycles.
The appendices to this report are referenced throughout this section as appropriate
relative to the specific topics covered. These appendices should be reviewed carefully
to ensure full understanding of the technical, economic, and load related assumptions
underpinning the IRP.

4.2 IRP Study Period


The IRP analysis is conducted over the 20-year Study Period beginning January 1, 2017,
and ending December 31, 2036. While the Study Period is the focus of all projections
of load, fuel and resource costs, the IRPs levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and
dispatch analyses also utilize capital cost estimates for candidate resources that will help
BELCO with initial budgetary planning over the next 1 to 3 years as a lead-in to more
detailed feasibility studies in which BELCO may engage based on the IRP results.

4.3 Financial Factors


BELCO provided the following key financial factors for use in the cost analysis:
Inflation 2.25 percent.
Weighted Average Cost of Capital 9.75 percent.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital as provided by BELCO is predicated upon
achieving an optimal gearing ratio based on the existing regulatory structure in Bermuda
and is consistent with other international utility benchmarks. It should be noted that
discounted cash flow calculations across the IRP are predicated upon escalation of
nominal dollars over the course of the Study Period, and that production costs are
discounted back to todays dollars using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


Section 4

The capital cost escalation assumption is developed from future capital costs escalation
rates included in recent construction contracts, forecasts and information from Global
Insight and Leidos experience in the industry. The escalation adder used for future
capital costs is equal to inflation for the duration of the Study Period.

4.4 Load Forecast


Leidos reviewed BELCOs updated net energy for load (NEL), which reflects total
generation inclusive of losses, and system peak demand data, generally over the period
2005 through 2015. We also reviewed the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic
Report, dated February 2016, as well as supplemental data provided by BELCO
regarding the trajectory of key industries within Bermuda and their estimated impact on
the recent contraction thru 2014 in real gross domestic product (GDP). Our review
comprised two parallel efforts, namely: (i) review of economic evidence and
intelligence to develop a perspective regarding the Load Forecast, including the
determination of assumptions related to uncertainty in the early portion of the Study
Period, and (ii) development of an updated econometric model of BELCOs historical
system energy using the GDP data provided in the 2015 Ministry of Finance report (to
supplement data previously obtained from IHS Global Insight), updated weather data
provided by BELCO, and other data provided by BELCO that was examined for its
ability to explain historical variation in load (as described further below).
Our review resulted in conclusions within each realm of analysis, which are discussed
below, as well as an updated long-term Load Forecast. The Load Forecast is predicated
upon a reasonable approach underpinned by an econometric analysis framework that
produced monthly econometric models for BELCOs NEL and system load factor, and
a short- to medium-term rubric for characterizing load uncertainty. The five sub-sections
below summarize: (i) the results of our weather normalization analysis, (ii) the results
of our review of economic data and intelligence, (iii) the development of and results
associated with the updated econometric model of BELCO NEL that determines the
GDP elasticity upon which the short- to medium-term forecast is based, (iv) our
methodology for developing the Load Forecast, which reflects a combination of a short-
to medium-term projection and assumptions regarding longer-term growth rates based
on feedback and interaction with the BELCO working group, and (v) the Load Forecast
results. Appendix A of this report provides a tabularized summary of the Load Forecast.

4.4.1 Weather Normalization Results


Weather normalization is a forecast variance decomposition technique that leverages
statistical estimates of the incremental impact of weather on energy and peak demand
to estimate what load levels would have been had normal weather prevailed. Normal
weather is typically estimated as a function of long-term average conditions or
homogenized normal data from weather banks or third-party providers. Separate
energy and load factor econometric models were developed for the BELCO system as
part of the IRP that contained weather normalization coefficients that were deployed to

4-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

weather normalize BELCO load. Weather data was compiled for the available period at
the time 6 of analysis, which was then used to determine normal conditions as follows:
For heating and cooling degree day determinants, the normal values were based on
long term averages of the hottest and coldest days in each month from the available
period of Weather Underground data; supplemental research was conducted by
Leidos on the National Climatic Data Center (the NCDC) daily airport data, but
such data was subject to significant amounts of missing days, or data points, that
rendered the data unusable for normalization purposes.
For peak demand, the econometric load factor model combined two additional
weather terms intended to capture the parabolic response to extreme temperatures on
the day during which each monthly BELCO peak occurred; peak timing information
(predicated on historical hourly loads provided by BELCO) was combined with
temperature data from Weather Underground to determine the temperatures during
peak days required to leverage the load factor model for weather normalization
purposes.
Figure 4-1 below illustrates the parabolic relationship between extreme temperatures
and BELCO peak demand data for a sampling of the historical data.

Temperature Response Parabola


System Peak Demand vs. Peak Day Max Temperature

125

120
System Peak Demand (MW)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Peak Day Max Temp (dF)

Figure 4-1 Parabolic Temperature Response for BELCO Peak Demand

As evidenced by Figure 4-1 above, there are bands of temperature response wherein
cool or warm temperatures relative to a particular base (above which temperatures may
be perceived as extreme by end users) can drive incremental increases in peak demand

6
The Load Forecast weather uncertainty analysis was performed during March 2015.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-3


Section 4

within each season. The cooling demand response and heating demand response
thresholds were 80 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for peak day maximum temperature and
58F for peak day minimum temperature, respectively. In order to estimate normal
conditions for such variables, the average of the 1981-2010 monthly maximum and
minimum temperatures (for the hottest/coldest days in each month) reported by Weather
Underground were used to develop threshold variables across that period, and were
combined with threshold variables for those same determinants during the periods
representing the BELCO peak, and then averaged. These normal conditions were then
compared to historical values to derive a weather-normalized load factor, which when
combined with weather normalized energy, was used to derive weather normalized peak
demand.
Figure 4-2 below summarizes historical cooling and heating degree days from the
Weather Underground data as compared to long term averages.

3,000

2,500

2,000
Degree Days

1,500

1,000

500

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

HDD CDD HDD_Norm CDD_Norm

Figure 4-2 Actual v. Normal Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Bermuda

Graphical review of weather as compared to normal conditions can generally provide


an indication of the direction and extent of weather impacts in a given year. As
evidenced by the figure above, it was anticipated that the net impact of weather
deviations from normal would be significant enough to warrant analysis, but not the
primary driver of load declines for either energy or peak demand given the magnitude
of actual changes in system load. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 below present historical and
weather normalized historical BELCO NEL and system peak demand, respectively.

4-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

760

740

720

700
GWh

680

660

640

620

600

Historical Weather Normalized

Figure 4-3 Historical and Weather Normalized System Energy (GWh)

130

125

120

115
MW

110

105

100

95

90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Historical Weather Normalized

Figure 4-4 Historical and Weather Normalized System Peak Demand (MW)

As evidenced by Figures 4-3 and 4-4, the net impact of energy normalization on an
annual basis (which can fluctuate from month to month in either direction) ranges from
-1.5 percent to 1.3 percent over the historical period, and -1.5 percent for 2015.
Likewise, the system peak demand normalization impact ranges from -3.4 percent to

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-5


Section 4

0.4 percent over the historical period, and -1.4 percent for 2013. The weather-
normalization calculations for peak demand have not been extended beyond 2013,
primarily due to missing weather data.
The weather normalization analysis shows that while weather does have an impact on
BELCO load, the relative stability of temperatures within the territory results in fairly
bounded impacts that cannot explain the magnitude of load contractions in and of
themselves entirely.

4.4.2 Economic Data Review


Leidos reviewed the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic Report as well as
other material provided by BELCO regarding the status of various industries in
Bermuda and their contribution to the direction of real GDP, which is the core
econometric variable deployed for load forecasting in the BELCO forecasting
architecture. We also reviewed information provided by BELCO related to the recent
outlook accompanying the country credit ratings by Standard and Poors (S&P) and
Fitch rating agencies.
The economy in Bermuda was estimated to have suffered another year of contraction in
real GDP in the year 2014, with a decline of 0.4 percent (which reflects a level of
contraction that is in the range contemplated in the prior 2013 Ministry of Finance
Report). While official 2015 values are not yet available, the Ministry of Finance Report
estimates that real GDP may have turned a corner in 2015, increasing by 1.5 to 2.5
percent over 2014. However, as estimated GDP based on actual performance of the
economy is not yet available for 2015, it is likely premature to assign that level of growth
to 2015 until estimates are updated. Leidos relied upon the range of potential delta
specified in the Ministry of Finance Report for GDP for 2015 in order to construct the
updated econometric model of BELCO NEL as described further below.
Figure 4-5 below summarizes the annual percent change in real GDP per year over the
most recent several years of available data.

4-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Summary of Recent Period Real GDP Deltas (% from Prior Year)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


(0.40)

(2.50) (2.40)

(3.90)
(4.40)

(5.90)

Figure 4-5 Summary of Year-over-Year Changes in Real GDP 7

The Ministry of Finance Report contains a discussion regarding the current state of the
Bermuda economy that provides a mixture of positive metrics and continued softness in
certain components of the economy, a sampling of which is as follows:

While some of the major economic indicators such as employment, air visitors
and construction activity declined in 2015, there were many encouraging results
regarding international business, employment income, retail sales and balance
of payments.
The number of jobs fell by 0.9 percent and the official unemployment rate was
calculated at 7.0 percent in 2015. This reflects an improvement from the rate in
2014 of 9.0 percent. 8
In the tourism sector, air visitors fell by 1.2 percent while cruise arrivals rose by
4.2 percent. Employment in hotels fell by 4.4 percent.
Employment income rose by 1.6 percent over the first three quarters of 2015 and
increased in all major sectors with the exception of Banking, Insurance & Real
Estate (down 0.4 percent) and Construction (down 11.9 percent). The gross

7
Source: 2015 Ministry of Finance Report
8
Leidos notes that a portion of this improvement may be due to discouraged workers who may have
stopped looking for new opportunities rather than an improvement in the underlying employment
situation.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-7


Section 4

turnover generated by retail stores increased by 2.7 percent in 2015, while jobs
in the sector rose by 0.4 percent.
Over the first three quarters of 2015, the level of construction activity contracted
by 41.3 percent, with the value of work put in place falling from $97.9 million
in 2014 to $57.5 million in 2015. The value of new projects started rose by 19.3
percent. Jobs in this industry fell by 1.0 percent year-over-year.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by an estimated 1.5 percent for 2015.
This level of inflation was below the 2.0 percent recorded in 2014 and the 1.8
percent recorded in 2013.
The contraction of GDP in real terms of 0.4 per cent in 2014 was mainly caused
by sharp declines in the output of the financial intermediation sector ($32.6
million), a reduction in the education, health and social work sector ($23.5
million), and a reduction in the hotels and restaurant sector ($19.7 million).
These declines were offset by gains in the international business sector ($39.2
million) and the construction and quarrying sector ($8.5 million).
New Vehicle sales rose by 24 percent.
New residential dwelling unit completions declined by 44.9 percent.
Vacation arrivals from the United States and United Kingdom were up, with
Canadian arrivals decreasing, in part due to the recent weakness of the Canadian
dollar.
Overall, the island lost an estimated 7,024 jobs since 2008, a reduction of 17.5
percent.
The Ministry of Finance Report also provides a discussion regarding the near-term
outlook for the Bermuda economy, underpinned to some degree by an analysis of the
world economic outlook and a review of a series of forward-looking developments,
including the following highlights:
Bermuda Business Development Agency activity is anticipated to yield growth
in international companies setting up on-island (i.e., new companies in
insurance, asset management, shipping, and technology).
Improvements in international tourism, driven from improving economic
conditions and low oil prices; increased cruise ship activity; major hotel
developments on the island; and planned increases in airport capacity.
Given anticipated developments on the island and the global economic outlook, the
Ministry of Finance projects that real GDP on Bermuda will increase by 2.0 to 3.0
percent in 2016. For purposes of the forecast for 2016 BELCO system load discussed
herein, we have assumed the low end of that range.
Additionally, the indication from our review of recent rating agency information
provided by BELCO suggests modest levels of improvement in the overall economy.
As evidenced by our review above, the main challenges related to load forecasting for
Bermuda utilizing economic data are that: (i) little or no long-term projected economic

4-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

data currently exists that bears out a de-coupled relationship between mainland US
recovery and recovery in Bermuda, (ii) the assumption of no uncertainty in the short- to
medium-term underestimates the range of potential future loads, and (iii) it is important
to predicate the forecast on an empirically estimated (econometric) approach that
recognizes the limitations of simulation of such models into the future absent economic
data that can capture short-term fluctuations. Refer to the subsection below for a
description of Leidos approach to addressing these challenges when developing the
BELCO Load Forecast.

4.4.3 Updated Econometric Model of Bermuda NEL


Pursuant to the receipt of updated historical data from BELCO for both NEL and key
weather determinants, most notably heating degree days and cooling degree days 9, as
well as additional data pertaining to BELCOs recent fuel cost adjustments, Leidos
prepared an updated econometric model of BELCO NEL. The purpose of the updated
model was to (i) refresh an existing econometric framework previously prepared for
BELCO to determine the stability of historical relationships, most notably relative to
real GDP, and (ii) leverage the elasticity resulting from the model to support the short-
to medium-term load forecast, which was subsequently blended with the longer term
growth rates based on the process described further below.
The key variables included in the updated BELCO NEL model include the following:
BELCO Real GDP this series was backcast based on previously obtained
data from Global Insight, coupled with the updated 2009 2015 data from the
2015 Ministry of Finance Report
Heating and cooling degree days (using a base of 65 dF)
The number of days in the month
Seasonal, autoregressive, and binary variables (which address isolated
anomalies in the monthly data)
The updated models findings regarding GDP elasticity were very similar to prior
iterations of the same model, with an estimated elasticity of 0.64. This implies that a
10 percent change in real GDP would equate to an approximate 6.4 percent change in
load on the island. The NEL model has an adjusted R-squared of approximately 97.6
percent, which implies that 97.6 percent of the variation in historical NEL can be
explained with the variables included in the equation.
It should be noted that the time series data provided by BELCO related to the fuel cost
adjustment was not found to be of sufficient length to be significant as a variable in the
model. To the extent the reduction in the recent fuel cost adjustment persists for some
extended period of time, future modeling efforts may uncover a material relationship.
This relationship would be evidenced by a recovery of load, above what would be
expected to result from the economic recovery, associated with end-user response to

9
Heating and cooling degree days are calculated based on the difference between daily temperatures
and a reference temperature, typically 65 degrees Fahrenheit (dF), and are utilized to capture month-
to-month variability in energy due to weather conditions driven from heating and cooling related load
response.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-9


Section 4

reduced electricity costs. Refer to the subsection below for further details regarding how
the GDP elasticity resulting from the updated model was deployed to develop the final
Load Forecast, which is also summarized in Appendix A.

4.4.4 Load Forecast Methodology


Recognizing the limitations associated with the lack of long-term perspectives and data
regarding the trajectory of real GDP, Leidos devised a load forecast methodology that
balances what we currently know with a more expansive treatment of uncertainty over
the forecast horizon. This heuristic approach remains underpinned by econometrically
estimated parameters that relate economic variations to load levels. Furthermore, an
effort was made to retain consistency in the long-term growth rates of the forecast as
codified through interaction with BELCO, while developing a band of uncertainty over
the forecast period.
The approach to the 2016 load forecast was as follows:

1. The energy forecast has been anchored to the 2015 value, on a weather-
normalized basis, with adjustments in succeeding years based on the methods
discussed below. In all years and all cases, the peak demand forecast is derived
from the energy forecast based on an assumed load factor derived from an
average of recent historical values (2005-2015), or 69.2 percent.
2. The econometrically estimated elasticity of real GDP for system energy from
the updated BELCO NEL econometric model, which is approximately 0.64, was
used to characterize the estimated impact on energy based on an assumed Year
1 (or 2016) change in real GDP (as depicted in Step 3 below).
3. The Year 1 (or 2016) change in real GDP was set to 2.0 percent (which is the
low end of the anticipated range of growth for 2016 presented in the Ministry of
Finance 2015 National Economic Report).
4. This delta value was combined with the econometrically-derived real GDP
elasticity in order to estimate energy impacts, resulting in growth in load for
2016 of 1.3 percent, from the weather-normalized value. 10 As the weather-
normalization impact for 2015 was a reduction of 1.5 percent, the forecasted
2016 energy reflects a decline of 0.2 percent from 2015 actual values. Growth
in succeeding years through 2018 was assumed to be half of the preceding year,
resulting in load growth rates of 0.6 percent and 0.3 percent in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.
5. The load values resulting above are further adjusted, beginning 2018, by
assumed reductions resulting from the implementation of the Bermuda
Governments light emitting diode (LED) street-lighting program, consistent

10
Weather-normalization is a process to develop an estimate of the impact on historical loads of weather
conditions and to estimate what load levels would have been had weather been normal. This process has
been applied to BELCOs historical energy and peak demands utilizing parameters taken from the
econometric analysis that underpins the near-term forecast. Normal heating and cooling degree days were
based on an average of such values over 2000-2013 (for consistency with prior results). Normal values
for peak demand were based on averages of peak day conditions over 1981-2010.

4-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

with a gradual and prolonged economic recovery and the long-term forecast
methodology described further below.

Development of Forecast Scenarios


The Base Case forecast developed as described above reflects the combination of a
simplified economic forecast, relying to some degree on the 2015 National Economic
Report and an econometric analysis of BELCO NEL. Econometric analysis is a superior
approach to trend-based forecasts, as it results in an explanation of history using
multivariate statistical analysis, as opposed to an extrapolation of trends. However, it
is recognized that the underlying projection of economic activity is subject to
considerable uncertainty.
Accordingly, in addition to the Base Case, High and Low Case load forecasts were
developed based on Leidos review and application of historical economic forecast
errors published by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. These statistics describe the
errors in Woods and Poole forecasts published over 1984-2014 and have been
interpreted to capture an 80 percent confidence interval of the potential range of future
economic activity on Bermuda as applied to the Base Case economic forecast.

4.4.5 Forecast Results


The finalized forecast reflects a combination of leveraging the results of the econometric
process and feedback from BELCO staff.
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 depict historical and projected BELCO NEL, with the latter chart
reflecting a narrow Y-axis so that year-over-year variations are more visible. Note that
the projection assumes an impact associated with the Bermuda Governments ongoing
LED street-lighting 11 replacement starting in the year 2018, based on energy differential
estimates relative to baseline street lights as estimated by BELCO. Figure 4-7 clearly
depicts the impact of warmer weather during 2015, the anticipated growth for 2016
relative to both the actual and weather-normalized 2015 values, and the impact of the
LED street lighting replacement beginning 2018.

11
Street lights have been assumed to have zero coincidence with BELCO system peak, and consequently,
there is no peak demand reduction associated with the LED street-lighting program.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-11


Section 4

Figure 4-6 Energy Forecast

Figure 4-7 Energy Forecast (Narrow Y-axis)

Figure 4-8 summarizes the updated historical and projected BELCO system peak
demand (note the narrow Y-axis, similar to Figure 4-7 above). Note that the LED street-
lighting replacement is assumed to have no impact on the system peak, as the system

4-12 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

peak is assumed to be during daylight hours. The weather-normalization analysis has


not been updated for 2014 and 2015 data at this time, but this does not have an impact
on the results, as the peak demand has been derived based on the projected NEL and an
assumed load factor.

Figure 4-8 Peak Demand Forecast (MW)

The forecast results shown above can be thought of as the organic forecast prior to
the incorporation of estimated impacts of any demand-side management options
deployed in a given resource expansion case. Each demand-side resources estimated
energy and peak demand impact, as applicable, will be represented as a reduction to the
organic load forecast within the confines of a given generation expansion case.
It is critical to note that the variations in BELCOs load forecast are secondary to
BELCOs aging generation asset infrastructure, which is the primary driver of future
capacity and energy requirements. Regardless of the variance in future load
stemming from growth uncertainty, capacity and energy requirements are projected
to be significant given BELCOs current retirement schedule for their existing assets.
Appendix A contains tabularized load forecast results assuming the Base Case over the
Study Period.

4.5 Reserve Margin Planning Criteria


BELCOs total installed power generation capacity requirement is established on the
basis of maintaining the ability to meet the annual peak system load without contribution
from the three largest capacity generating units on the system and without serving the
system load component that is served by capacity from the Tynes Bay waste-to-energy
facility (i.e., Tynes Bay capacity can be thought of as a credit to the reserve margin

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-13


Section 4

requirement). The application of this criteria results in a planning reserve margin that
is calculated by the formula:
RM = 3C TB
Where:
RM is the system planning capacity reserve margin (MW)
3C is the total capacity of the three largest generating units on the system (MW)
TB is the rated output capacity of the Tynes Bay facility (MW)
The capacity of the three largest units is used in the formula to simulate a situation where
the largest unit is out of service for planned maintenance, the second largest unit is out
of service on a forced outage and the third largest unit is being operated to meet the
system spinning reserve requirement. BELCOs current operation protocol requires
sufficient spinning reserve to facilitate the instantaneous loss of the largest generating
unit with no resulting loss of load due to under frequency tripping of feeder circuits. For
the purpose of the formula, the Tynes Bay facility is regarded as a firm capacity
resource.
Based on the existing BELCO resource portfolio, the 2016 planning reserve margin is
established as follows:
RM = 3 X 14.3 4.5 = 38.4 MW
During the production cost analysis, the dispatch to load model calculates the annual
capacity reserve margin based on (i) the existing resources on the BELCO system,
reflective of retirements, capacity adjustments as a result of alternate fuel operation and
the expansion of Tynes Bay to an export capability of 4.5 MW in 2016, (ii) the size and
nature of resource options that are added and (iii) the projected system peak demand.
The capacity reserve margin as a percentage of the total installed capacity fluctuates
based on the value of the total installed capacity.

4.6 Existing Generating Resources


Leidos provided BELCO with a spreadsheet template to house all critical downstream
modeling assumptions for each of BELCOs existing generating resources. As part of
that data transmittal, operating data on generation by resource during the recent period
was provided, which helped Leidos to understand capacity factors for existing resources
as a benchmark to capacity factors for candidate resources in terms of the LCOE and
dispatch analyses. Appendix B, appended herein, summarizes all cost, operational, and
performance characteristics for BELCOs existing resources.
BELCO provided a detailed response to Leidos data request, and Leidos reviewed the
data inputs provided by BELCO for sensibility. Assumptions related to fuel conversion
of existing resources and associated parameters (for assets that are scheduled to
transition to natural gas or other alternative fuel if and when such infrastructure becomes
available) were developed in partnership with BELCO and are modeled as options in
the dispatch cases.

4-14 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Data on the timing of the alternate fuel conversion (to be based on the definition of the
applicable expansion scenario), the capital and O&M cost of conversion (gathered via
manufacturer data and Leidos project database), and the associated changes in
performance characteristics resulting from the conversion (e.g., heat rate) are compiled
in the Supply Side Candidate Resources section of Appendix B. In addition, in the
absence of actual data, Leidos based estimates for the emission rates of the existing fleet
on MAN 48/60B guarantees for the existing diesel units and on Solar Turbines Inc.
(Solar) new and clean emission rates for the existing gas turbine (GT) units (also
referred to herein as combustion turbines, or CTs).
BELCO reports that there is no outstanding debt on existing generating resources 12.
Debt service for supply side (either new or converted) and demand side candidate
resources are estimated based on the options defined and the estimated cost of capital.
Refer to Appendix B for estimates of debt service per year for candidate resources,
which are described further below. Figure 4-9 below summarizes BELCOs base load
forecast (with and without reserves) versus BELCOs existing power supply resources,
reflecting projected retirement dates, including Tynes Bay and its expansion (which is
assumed to impact reserve requirements as defined above). The retirements are
assumed to occur after the summer peak season of the year stated in the text boxes within
the graph. Table 4-1 summarizes BELCOs estimated capacity gaps, using the base
case load forecast with reserves as a basis. It should be noted that the graphic and the
table which follow below are reflective of a reserve margin which ranges from 41.4 MW
to 29.1 MW based on the formulaic approach as described above with no addition of
new generation resources, while the dispatch-to-load model establishes the reserve
margin inclusive of resource additions.

12
BELCO has provided depreciation schedules for assets in support of incorporating the full impact of
potential early retirement of certain resources, which has been captured in a given production cost case if
applicable. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of depreciation schedules provided.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-15


Section 4

BELCO 2016 IRP


Existing Available Capacity vs. Projected BELCO Load
200
Tynes Bay increases
180 beginning of 2017 and Units
E1 and E2 Retire end of 2018
Base Forecast with Reserves
160

140
Base Forecast without Reserves
120
MW

100

80
D15, GT3E and Units E3, E4 and
GT3F Retire end of GT4 Retire end of
60
2015; GT4 Retires 2019; Unit D14 Unit GT5
end of 2016; Units Retires end of Retires end
40 D3, D8, D10, of 2025
2020 Units E5 and
Retire end of
E6 Retire end
20 2018
of 2030

0
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Figure 4-9 Capacity vs. Load

Table 4-1
Capacity Gap Analysis
(Base Load Forecast with Reserves)

Year Capacity Gap Year Capacity Gap


(MW) (MW)
2016 14.3 2026 (76.9)
2017 7.6 2027 (77.2)
2018 (16.1) 2028 (77.6)
2019 (37.5) 2029 (77.9)
2020 (57.4) 2030 (78.3)
2021 (62.2) 2031 (97.4)
2022 (62.6) 2032 (97.8)
2023 (62.9) 2033 (98.1)
2024 (63.2) 2034 (98.4)
2025 (63.6) 2035 (98.8)

4-16 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

4.7 Power Supply Options


The following list summarizes the resources being considered by BELCO, organized by
supply-side and demand-side candidate resource options.

4.7.1 Supply-Side Options


The following is a discussion of the development of the key parameters for the supply-
side options considered for this evaluation. Note that Appendix F of this report contains
additional discussion surrounding other resource options that were deemed infeasible
based on certain criteria as a supplement to this section.
Leidos assumed that any new No. 2 oil-fired resources will be supplied with fuel from
existing oil storage facilities at the Central Plant. Based on the conceptual LNG
regasification facility and natural gas delivery pipeline design, it is anticipated that gas
compressors will not be required for the CT options.
Due to the scarcity of fresh water on Bermuda, Leidos assumed an air-cooled condenser
system in place of a traditional condenser and wet cooling tower configuration for all
combined cycle (CC) resource options.
The CT and CC generating unit performance characteristics were developed based on
the average mean temperatures observed in Bermuda of approximately 72 degrees
Fahrenheit.
The construction cost estimates are based on the assumption that no land costs or other
site infrastructure improvements such as fire/water supply lines or significant site
remediation requirements are necessary. Leidos included an allowance of $100,000 for
interconnection costs on the Simple-Cycle (SC) CTs and $200,000 for the CC CTs.
The construction cost estimates were developed on an EPC contract basis. The accuracy
range of these estimates is + 30/-15 percent.
Simple-Cycle MSD - HFO, Regasified LNG
With concurrence by BELCO, Leidos used the quote from the winning proposal
that was submitted in response to a request for proposals for the proposed oil-
fired North Station Extension project in 2011 as a basis for developing an updated
capital cost estimate for the medium speed diesel oil-fired resource option. The
proposals were based on the EPC scope of work for a power plant comprising
three 14 MW nominal capacity medium speed diesel generators designed to burn
heavy fuel oil (HFO). Based on information from the bidder, the quote was
adjusted upward by a factor of ten percent as an estimate of the cost impact of
reducing the number of units from three to one. The quote included both US
currency (USD) and European currency (Euro) cost estimate components.
The Euro portion of the quote was adjusted for inflation, as measured/estimated
for the Euro-zone, over the five year period since 2011 and the shift in the
exchange rate between the USD and the Euro from the date of the quote. The
USD portion was adjusted to reflect the impact of inflation as measured/estimated
for the US over the same five year period. The inflation adjustment with respect
to the USD is based on the US Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers,
while the inflation adjustment with respect to the Euro is based on the

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-17


Section 4

Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices for resident and non-resident households


in the economic territory of the Euro. The USD to Euro exchange rate for the
purpose of converting Euros to USD is used to establish a current USD cost
estimate, and is based on the Bloomberg April 27, 2016 reported rate.
The cost estimate for a nominal 13.7 MW capacity dual fuel (oil/natural gas,
DF) fired medium speed reciprocating engine generating unit was developed
based on information from the same contractor whose quote was used as a basis
for the cost estimate for the oil fired units. The contractor estimated that, on a
USD per kilowatt basis, the installed cost of an equivalent sized DF power plant
project would amount to approximately 110 percent of the cost of the quote
provided for the oil-fired project above, after accounting for the reduced capacity
output. Leidos applied this relationship in developing the cost estimate for the
DF medium speed reciprocating engine candidate resource.
As an option in the proposal for the North Power Plant Extension Project, the
winning proposal included a firm quote for the conversion of BELCOs existing
oil-fired medium speed reciprocating generating units E5, E6, E7 and E8 to DF
(oil/natural gas) capability. Leidos used this quote along with similar inflation
and exchange rate adjustments to those described above to develop current capital
cost estimates in USD per kilowatt for the conversion.
Capital cost estimates and performance parameters for the new candidate gas
powered reciprocating engine generators designed for natural gas-only operation
are based on indicative pricing and data provided by an original equipment
manufacturer. This candidate resource is to be modeled as a set of four units
installed together.
Heat rates and capacities for the medium speed diesel (MSD) and reciprocating
gas engine generating units were developed based on data provided by the
original equipment manufacturers. Leidos did not apply any allowance for
guarantees or off-design performance.
Non-fuel O&M costs for the HFO-fired option were developed based on recent
actual operating cost data provided by BELCO for its MAN 48/60 generating
units. Although it would be expected that the DF engines would have lower
overall O&M costs, based on discussions with the EPC contractor, Leidos
assumed the same non-fuel O&M costs for the DF MSD generating units.
Simple-Cycle and Combined Cycle CT LFO and Regasified LPG/LNG
In conjunction with on-going work with BELCO regarding assessment of the
feasibility of installing LNG infrastructure on-island, Leidos worked with a
vendor to develop a capital cost estimate for a nominal 14.5 MW simple cycle
CT. Leidos based the capital cost estimate for a CT on the vendor provided quote
for the combined cycle combustion turbine through adjustments to the equipment
components included, as well as overall direct and indirect project cost estimates.
In particular, the steam generating equipment, steam turbine and generator set and
condensing equipment were excluded from the estimate in order to derive the CT
cost estimates. Leidos used this adjusted quote, adjusted for inflation as discussed

4-18 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

above under the MSD section, to develop current capital cost estimates in USD
per kilowatt.
The same vendor provided information regarding a nominal 18.0 MW CC electric
generator. The vendor provided an estimate for a single combustion turbine
paired with steam generating equipment and a single steam turbine (a 1x1
configuration) CC electric generator dated August 2014. The 1x1 CC estimate
provided by the vendor was provided for locating the unit at an existing site and
included: (i) Bermuda specific pricing for equipment delivery and construction;
(ii) balance of plant (BOP) costs; (iii) direct and indirect construction costs;
(iv) project management and engineering costs; and (v) wet-cooling and steam
condensing through a cooling tower. Leidos reviewed the quote and relied
primarily upon the equipment costs, making adjustments to the construction and
indirect costs based on Leidos own experience. In addition, Leidos revised the
assumption for cooling to reflect a dry-cooling system using an air-cooled
condenser, which increased the cost of the original quote. Leidos used this
adjusted quote, adjusted for inflation, to develop current capital cost estimates in
USD per kilowatt.
The capital costs and performance characteristics assumptions for the LPG
CT/CC resource options were based upon prior work performed by Leidos in
support of BELCO during 2013. The capital costs and O&M costs were escalated
from 2013 real dollars to 2016 real dollars using the US Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers as discussed above under the MSD section.
The capacity and heat rate for the CT and CC were developed based on
information provided by the vendor to Leidos.
Non fuel O&M costs for the CT and CC were developed based on discussions
with the vendor.
Biomass
The parameters for the generic biomass fluidized bed boiler with steam turbine
generator were derived based on information provided by BELCO. The design
proposed included three 18 MW units for a total of 54 MW.
The capital costs were estimated for delivery to and installation in Bermuda. The
estimated capital cost for a 54 MW biomass fluidized bed boiler with steam
turbine generator is estimated to be approximately $264.6 million (2016 $).
The estimated fixed O&M annual cost is estimated to be approximately
$11,900,000 per year (2016 $).
The estimated variable O&M annual cost is estimated to be approximately
$4.25/MWh.
The heat rate of 15,000 Btu/kWh is estimated based on typical ranges of heat rates
for a biomass steam boiler which ranges from 14,000 Btu/kWh to 16,000
Btu/kWh.
The capacity factor based on information provided by BELCO is estimated to be
89 percent.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-19


Section 4

The fuel cost of the feedstock is estimated at $12 per mmBtu. This costs is
assumed to be reflective of a feedstock source from the east coast of the U.S. and
all taxes and duties for delivery to BELCO.
The biomass resource is only evaluated in the LCOE model.
Utility-Scale Solar
The parameters for the utility scale solar installation were derived based on
information provided by BELCO. The AC capacity of the generic utility scale
options was developed based on information supplied by BELCO and Leidos
own expertise and experience.
BELCO provided updated capital cost information regarding utility-scale solar
PV resources at an estimated cost of $3.20 per watt.
In order to maintain a range of generic PV resource options for IRP modeling
purposes, resource options at the 5 MW and 20 MW-AC level are parameterized
as resource options for the IRP.
The O&M costs for the utility scale solar option are composed of fixed costs only
and were developed based on information provided by BELCO for distributed
commercial installations. In addition, Leidos included the future cost of inverter
replacement in the fixed O&M.
Offshore Wind
Cost and performance data for the off-shore wind energy resource option were
derived from the 2014 report titled Offshore Wind Energy in the Context of
Multiple Ocean Uses on the Bermuda Platform by the Bren School of
Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa
Barbara (the UCSB Report). The UCSB Report was prepared for the
Government of Bermuda and provided to Leidos for use in the IRP exercise. The
objectives of the UCSB Report were as follows:
Determine economic viability of off-shore wind energy with respect to
Bermudas current energy context.
Identify and characterize potential conflicts with ocean uses and ecological
features.
Develop a spatial analysis model to identify potential locations for off-shore
wind farms with acceptable risk of impacts.
The report indicated a range of capital costs from $2,500/kW to $6,500/kW and,
for purposes of the analysis performed in the UCSB Report, a capital cost of
$5,600/kW was relied upon. This is comparable to the cost estimate of
$4,000/kW developed independently by Leidos, when considering the fact that
the Leidos estimate does not include interconnection and/or network upgrades.
The report also indicated a reasonable operations and maintenance annual
expense of approximately $40/MWh. This is essentially identical to the Leidos
estimate of approximately $41/MWh.

4-20 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

4.7.2 Demand-Side Options


Residential Solar Water Heating
Hourly profiling for the solar thermal water heater system was developed based
on weather data purchased from Weather Analytics, LLC, which provided TMY
2 (or 15-year based normalized hourly weather) for Bermuda. This data was
coupled with two models to produce an hourly profile of energy draw (negative)
or avoided grid energy (positive), the net of which resulted in annual energy for
the incremental installation. Demand impacts were estimated based on an analysis
of estimated hourly grid avoided demand during the hour of the BELCO system
peak.
The modeling for the hourly profile was a function of the combination of two
separate tools as follows:
The first tool is the SAM, as developed by NREL through a relationship with
the DOE.
The second tool is called RET-Screen. This is also a publically available tool
developed by Natural Resources Canada that contains built-in equipment
specifications, including make/model numbers.
Various combinations of solar thermal paired with solar PV were designed, and
ultimately, a solar thermal pairing with 1,060 watt (DC) PV panels was selected
as the demand side resource candidate. Hourly energy modeling has been
conducted as discussed above to reflect the estimated annual energy that can be
expected from the updated PV panel rating.
The capital cost of a solar thermal water heater system paired with a 1,060 watt
PV panel, which is the sole option retained for IRP modeling purposes, was
estimated by BELCO to be $9,000 per unit, inclusive of costs associated with
monitoring potential pilot deployments.
Leidos has assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty for the
mechanical equipment, and modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters. Leidos
estimated the overall fixed O&M cost to be around $1,000 over the life of the
installation; and those costs are subject to significant uncertainty, and could be as
much as two or three times the base estimate. In addition, Leidos accounted for
cost contingency associated with mainland versus BELCO cost.
Refer to Appendix B for a complete set of assumptions related to the Solar
Thermal water heater system. The peak demand and energy impact of this system
will be netted out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-
side resources, and the cost will be added to the dispatch analysis as a discrete
cost. Uptake of the program is based on information provided by BELCO.
Small-Scale Solar PV Panels Schools
Capacity, capital costs, and fixed O&M costs for PV installations of a distributed
nature for commercial installs were developed based on information provided by
BELCO. Leidos has assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty
for the modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-21


Section 4

Analysis of annual energy and coincidence of solar output with the BELCO
system peak were developed based on (i) Leidos parameterization and
deployment of the NREL solar profile tool using a nearby mainland weather area,
(ii) Leidos review of the Castle Harbour feasibility study conducted for BELCO,
and (ii) an analysis of the coincidence of the hourly solar output relative to the
BELCO system peak. As a result of the Castle Harbor studys use of Bermuda-
specific weather data, Leidos used that study as the basis for the assumption
related to coincidence of solar output to the BELCO system peak as well as for
annual energy. Table 4-2 summarizes the most important solar PV assumptions
on an incremental basis, the performance aspects of which also apply to utility-
scale solar.

Table 4-2
Key Solar PV Assumptions

Assumption Residential PV Commercial PV

Rating of Installation (kW-DC) 2.00 100.00


Capital Cost ($/kW-DC) 4,380 4,000
AC Rating of Installation (kW-AC) (1) 1.72 86.00
Capital Cost ($/kW-AC) 5,093 4,651
Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-AC-yr) 36.40 20.22
Annual Degradation Factor (%) 0.8% 0.8%
Dependable Capacity @ BELCO Peak 60% 60%
(1) Assumes a DC-AC ratio of approximately 1.16 based on The Castle Harbour Solar Project report.

The peak demand and energy impact of all projected PV installs will be netted
out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-side resources,
and the cost will be added to the dispatch analysis as a discrete cost. Uptake of
the program on a by-sector basis is based on information provided by BELCO.
Battery Storage
Leidos evaluated battery technology for application as spinning reserve backup
and as system stabilization support for intermittent supply side resources such as
solar and wind. The technology evaluated for the spinning reserve back up
application and the system stabilization application was a lithium-ion battery type
resource.
The capital cost for both battery resource types was derived based on information
from Leidos database of reference projects in conjunction with information
obtained from a major U.S. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).
The battery resource option does not have a heat rate.

4-22 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The capacity rating of the spinning reserve backup battery resource was selected
to be capable of providing 12 MW for a duration of 15 minutes and was assumed
to have an annual operation of 60 full cycles per year at an average of five cycles
per month, each cycle consisting of a charge and discharge. This assumes a
generator trip five times per month each of which will require operation of the
battery. Further, the sizing of this battery option allows for provision of ancillary
services such as frequency regulation.
The capacity rating of the system stabilization battery resource was selected to be
capable of providing 5 MW for a duration of 60 minutes paired with the 20 MW
utility scale solar PV. The size of the battery system paired with the 5 MW utility
scale solar PV resource is sized to be capable of provided 1.5 MW for a duration
of 60 minutes. For support of the offshore wind resource, the 5 MW for a
duration of 60 minutes battery package is modeled.
The O&M costs for the battery resource options were composed of fixed costs
only and were based on information from Leidos database of reference projects.
Small Scale Cogeneration
The small scale cogeneration resource was assumed to be located at a major
commercial customers site, such as a hotel. The projection of electric load
requirements of a large hotel were developed by Leidos based on information
provided by BELCO. The thermal load requirements were developed by Leidos
based on commercially available information and typical industry data.
In developing the BELCO Power Supply Plan, the model will dispatch to BELCO
load inclusive of the reserve requirement (based on the criterion above) and select
the portfolio of supply-side resources that meets the capacity and energy needs of
BELCO with the lowest NPV of power supply cost over the Study Period. Must-
run resources or other unique dispatch constraints, as well as planned
maintenance of each resource will be considered in the analysis. As noted above,
it is Leidos intention to net out the estimated impact of any future DSM programs
from the BELCO load forecast prior to performing the supply-side evaluation.
Distributed Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP)
This option selected to provide enough electric generation to meet the customer
minimum load as well as provide thermal energy in support of cooling loads,
heating loads and domestic hot water consumption using a micro turbine
generator.
The micro turbine was assumed to operate on bulk LPG when LPG becomes
available on the island.
The construction cost estimate for the CCHP was developed based on information
obtained from a vendor in conjunction with Leidos database of reference projects
and excluded the use of gas compressors.
The capacity and heat rate were derived from information obtained from a vendor.
The O&M costs for the CCHP option is composed of variable costs only and was
developed based on information from Leidos database of reference projects.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-23


Section 4

Distributed Combined Heat and Power (CHP)


This option has been based on sizing a reciprocating engine to meet the electrical
load of a generic customer. Heat recovery equipment was selected to optimize the
thermal waste energy of the exhaust of the reciprocating engine for use as energy
to serve space heating and domestic hot water needs of a generic customer.
The reciprocating engine was assumed to operate on bulk LNG when LNG
becomes available on the island.
The construction cost estimate for the CHP was developed based on information
received from discussions with a vendor.
The capacity and heat rate were derived from discussions with a vendor.
The O&M costs for the CHP option is composed of variable costs only and was
developed based on information from commercially available tools used for
approximating generator costs.

4.7.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) Portfolio Definition


In addition to the solar thermal and PV pairing above, Leidos will consider a generic
DSM option (comprised of an as yet undefined bundle of energy efficiency measures)
that is commensurate with incremental DSM abatement (or reduction in both peak
demand and energy) of 0.5 percent per year over the Study Period. As the exact nature
and extent of the programs associated with BELCOs downstream DSM portfolio
cannot be known until a DSM program is funded and audits can be conducted at
strategic locations in order to assess technical potential for a range of programs, it is
necessary to develop a planning-level estimate of the costs to design, deploy, and
manage a generic DSM portfolio that can achieve the incremental impacts desired to be
evaluated as part of the IRP. It should be noted that the specific programs in a given
bundle will ultimately drive cost, and that there is a large variation in cost as a function
of the stage at which a program is currently operating; as the low hanging fruit
measures are gradually adopted, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult for the
utility to endorse additionally successful measures that are cost effective. Consequently,
the cost curve for energy efficiency (which is the key component of DSM contemplated
herein) programs as a bundle is initially less expensive and gradually escalates to a much
higher cost, particularly assuming incremental achievement in the range of 0.5 percent
to 1.0 percent per year, or as much as 10 percent to 20 percent of current peak demand
ranges over 20 years (note: 0.5 percent incremental achievement is assumed herein).
Leidos has conducted a targeted meta-analysis of existing literature regarding DSM
costs. The existing literature reflects a vast range of reported costs across programs as a
function of the various stages of program development for best-in-class programs as
compared to programs that are in earlier stages of maturity, as well as due to the
challenges related to apples to apples data sources and reporting. Leidos has focused
on more recent sources in our review, generally avoiding literature produced prior to
2012. In addition to sources internal to projects with which Leidos is familiar, the recent
sources for cost information were as follows:

4-24 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

A May 2014 Report produced by Long Island Power that summarized recent
Efficiency Long Island program costs.
An April 2013 report by the National Resources Defense Council, which reported
statistics regarding cost per MWh saved in the state of Michigan for two utilities as
compared to leading states (NSTAR in Massachusetts and the Efficiency Vermont
program).
A February 2013 report by the Public Service of Vermont that provided longitudinal
data on program costs over the period 2002-2011.
A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory that meta-
analyses the cost of saved energy across the residential, commercial, and low income
retail classes across U.S. states.
A March 2015 report by the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
on the average cost reported by public utility programs in the state over the
2013/2014 fiscal year.
Two separate studies conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy in Texas and in Colorado on specific utility bundles of programs.
Based on this collective research, which includes program costs associated with other
Leidos projects, we have estimated an all-in cost in $/MWh for the generic EE block.
Table 4-3 represents planning-level annual costs of a generic bundle at incremental
achievements of .5 percent and 1 percent per year up to a maximum of 10 percent. As
noted above, we have structured the cost estimate such that incremental achievements
in DSM uptake become gradually more expensive as the Study Period progresses given
that the utility is anticipated to pursue lower-hanging fruit measures up front and work
to expand the DSM program over time. The estimated DSM costs reflect a long-range
view of the cost of measures wherein costs are shown as amortized over an assumed
average measure useful life of 7 years. It is critical to note that these costs are not
associated with any given measure and that lives of specific measures will vary once
the portfolio is actually defined. The main intent of the values shown is to indicate
that DSM measures have longitudinal benefits that accrue over the life of the
measure, and consequently, one view of implied costs could be based on spreading
the cost to implement a given measure over that measures useful life. Such
considerations will be made when evaluating DSM in a holistic fashion with the
context of a given scenario.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-25


Section 4

Table 4-3
Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh)

Total Achievement
@0.5% Per Year for 20 Equivalent Level Total Achievement Equivalent Level
Year Years Cost ($/MWh) @1.0% for 10 Years Cost ($/MWh)
1 0.5% 40.18 1.0% 47.95
2 1.0% 47.95 2.0% 58.54
3 1.5% 49.05 3.0% 71.46
4 2.0% 58.54 4.0% 84.47
5 2.5% 59.88 5.0% 98.84
6 3.0% 71.46 6.0% 114.93
7 3.5% 73.11 7.0% 133.07
8 4.0% 84.47 8.0% 153.63
9 4.5% 86.42 9.0% 176.96
10 5.0% 98.84 10.0% 203.48
11 5.5% 101.11 10.0% 209.58
12 6.0% 114.93 10.0% 215.87
13 6.5% 117.57 10.0% 222.35
14 7.0% 133.07 10.0% 229.02
15 7.5% 136.13 10.0% 235.89
16 8.0% 153.63 10.0% 242.96
17 8.5% 157.17 10.0% 250.25
18 9.0% 176.96 10.0% 257.76
19 9.5% 181.03 10.0% 265.49
20 10.0% 203.48 10.0% 273.46

4.7.4 Basis of Unit Operating Performance


Leidos provided net unit performance estimates (or net plant for the combined cycle
options) for each option based on an assumed parasitic load for each unit. The basis of
each net heat rate estimate reflects the HHV as opposed to the lower heating value
(LHV) basis. The difference between LHV and HHV is a function of the hydrogen
content of the fuel and can be thought of as the usable energy versus the chemical energy
in a fuel. When combusted, the chemical energy is released in the form of heat, with a
portion of the heat in an unusable form for current technology when hydrogen combines
with oxygen to form water vapor. If the water vapor is cooled below the saturation
point, the energy in the water vapor is released. Currently, engines are not mechanically
capable of extracting the remaining energy from the water vapor, and many engine
manufacturers state that the maximum energy that is available for the engine is the LHV.
Therefore, they prefer to state the performance on an LHV basis, which results in a
calculated efficiency that appears to be higher than the efficiency calculated on an HHV

4-26 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

basis. Typically, gaseous fuels are purchased on a higher heating value basis, thus
Leidos has provided the generating unit performance estimates on a HHV basis.
Leidos assumed 1.06 as the conversion from LHV to HHV for fuel oils and 1.11 for
natural gas. This estimates that approximately 6 percent of the chemical energy in fuel
oil combustion products and 11 percent of the chemical energy in natural gas
combustion products is water vapor.

4.8 Projections and Detailed Fuel Model Development


Leidos engaged in the development of a detailed fuel delivery forecast model for each
of the main candidate fuels in the IRP. The purpose of this detailed fuel model was to
expand and enhance the transparency of the fuel forecast and compartmentalize the
components of the build-out, so as to allow BELCO a platform for review and in-depth
itemization of the aspects of the pricing. Appendix C of this report contains the most
recent vintage of the by-year fuel forecast for all key fuels, including the adjustment to
fuel adder costs based on feedback from BELCO. On a broad basis, the following list
describes the key steps involved in the development of delivered fuel price projections
as are anticipated to be input into the downstream IRP production cost simulations (note:
all line items comprising the detailed fuel projection can be found in Appendix C of this
report):
Leidos estimated the HFO, LFO, LPG ISO, LPG Bulk 13, Bulk LNG ISO 14, LNG
ISO 15 and LNG Bulk commodity pricing to be commensurate with the updated AEO
from the EIA for those fuels; perspectives in the AEO have been combined with
recent period forward markets information as extracted from NYMEX commodity
projection for near-term strips to better capture a blend between short-term price
fluctuations and long term price level expectations. This was of particular importance
for oil given recent price fluctuations for this commodity. In addition, with regard
to the LPG fuel pricing, BELCO provided fuel delivery prices based on recent
discussions with a major fuel supplier.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, recent actual fuel commodity price data
for HFO and LFO.
Leidos modeled certain critical fuel adders associated with delivered pricing for
Bermuda, including adders for through-put, freight and supply, duty, and other
additional taxes with regard to HFO and LFO based on data provided by BELCO.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, fuel supplier indicative commodity
pricing for LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel delivered to Bermuda. This supplier also
included revised fuel cost adders for the LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel supply.
The estimated cost and schedule of the LNG infrastructure for the full conversion of
generation to LNG were developed on the basis of input from the 2014 Liquefied

13
LPG Bulk has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model for purposes of the LPG Only
cases defined earlier in this report and further below.
14
LNG ISO has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model. This fuel is assumed to be
deployed only for modeling the CHP microgeneration candidate resources at this time.
15
Ibid.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-27


Section 4

Natural Gas Supply Feasibility Study Report, which reflected an LNG offloading,
storage, regasification and natural gas pipeline infrastructure capital cost estimate of
approximately $114M, with scheduled completion in 2020.
The LNG infrastructure cost for the partial conversion of generation to LNG were
estimated based on the study noted above with capital cost deductions associated
with a smaller LNG storage tank and the removal of the natural gas pipeline to the
Central Plant. Partial conversion LNG infrastructure costs total approximately
$75M.
Each of the adders, as well as other values that were provided by BELCO in dollars
per barrel or dollars per US gallon, have been converted to an all-in dollars per
MMBtu using the ratio of MMBtu of fuel per unit input using HHV specifications
as provided by BELCO. These adder amounts were then combined with the
commodity component to produce the final delivered price forecast for each fuel. In
general, adders have been escalated at inflation over the longer-term forecast
horizon.
Figures 4-10 to 4-12 below contain a summary of the core commodity component
(without any adders), as well as the all-in delivered price (with adders), associated with
all of the fuel prepared for evaluation purposes. The all-in cost is shown both with and
without the impact of the import duty.

Base Case: Commodity Prices Only


30.00
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)
Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)
Base Case: LPG - ISO (NYMEX 2016-2018)
25.00
Base Case: LPG - Bulk (NYMEX 2016-2018)
Base Case: LNG - Bulk (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
Base Case: LNG - ISO (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)

20.00 Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
$/mmBtu

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

Figure 4-10 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast

4-28 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

45
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term) The bulk fuel prices are
inclusive of the bulk supply
Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)
infrastructure capital cost
40 recovery adder.
Base Case: LPG - ISO (NYMEX 2016-2018)

Base Case: LPG - Bulk (NYMEX 2016-2018)

Base Case: LNG - Bulk (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
35
Base Case: LNG - ISO (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)

Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near
Term 2016-2019)
30
$/mmBtu

25

20

15

10

Figure 4-11 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (with Import Duty)

Base Case: All-In Delivered Cost


(excludes Fuel Import Duty)
45.00
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term) The bulk fuel prices are
inclusive of the bulk supply
Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term) infrastructure capital cost
40.00 recovery adder.
Base Case: LPG - ISO (NYMEX 2016-2018)

Base Case: LPG - Bulk (NYMEX 2016-2018)

Base Case: LNG - Bulk (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
35.00
Base Case: LNG - ISO (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)

Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)

30.00
$/mmBtu

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

Figure 4-12 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (without Import Duty)

The series of figures (Figure 4-13 through Figure 19) that follow provide graphical
summaries for each fuel that reflect not only the commodity itself but also the build up

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-29


Section 4

to delivered pricing. Each of the figures represents a stacked bar chart, where the
specific component of the bar in each year shows the contribution of each component
of the forecast to the ultimate delivered price. Note that the units in each graph are
specific to the fuel in question. The complete details for forecast development can be
found in Appendix C of this report. BELCO indicated that the fuel import duty is
potentially subject to change in an effort to maintain revenue neutrality of the
Bermudian Government. For purposes of dispatch modeling, the fuel import duty is to
be included based on current rates as reported by BELCO.

Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)


200
Unesco Tax

180 Duty

Freight & Supply

160 Through-put

Commodity Price for IRP


140

120
$/bbl

100

80

60

40

20

Figure 4-13 Base Case LFO Forecast (with Import Duty)

4-30 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)


200
Unesco Tax

180 Duty

Freight & Supply

160 Through-put

Commodity Price for IRP


140

120
$/bbl

100

80

60

40

20

Figure 4-14 Base Case HFO Forecast (with Import Duty)

Base Case: LPG - ISO (NYMEX 2016-2018)


2.00
Duty

1.80 Inland Freight - BM

ISO container

1.60 Supplier Commodity Charge

Commodity Price for IRP


1.40

1.20
$/gal

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Figure 4-15 Base Case LPG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty)

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-31


Section 4

Base Case: LPG - Bulk (NYMEX 2016-2018)


2.00
LPG Bulk Supply Infrastructure Cost
Unesco Tax
1.80
Duty
Annual Infrastructure O&M Fee
1.60 Supplier Commodity Charge
Commodity Price for IRP
1.40

1.20
$/gal

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Figure 4-16 Base Case LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate) Forecast (with Import Duty)

Base Case: LNG - ISO (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
35.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Freight
30.00
Administration Fee
LNG ISO Tank Fee
Supplier Commodity Surcharge
25.00 Commodity (HH)

20.00
$/mmBtu

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

Figure 4-17 Base Case LNG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty)

4-32 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Base Case: LNG - Bulk (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
25.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Annual Infrastructure O&M Fee
Pipeline Transportation (intended to represent mainland)
20.00 Commodity Adder
Shipping
Commodity (HH)
LNG Storage & Regasification Infrastructure Cost

15.00
$/mmBtu

10.00

5.00

0.00

Figure 4-18 Base Case LNG Bulk Full Conversion Forecast (with Import Duty)

Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term
2016-2019)
25.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Annual Infrastructure O&M Fee
Pipeline Transportation (intended to represent mainland)
20.00
Commodity Adder
Shipping
Commodity (HH)
LNG Storage & Regasification Infrastructure Cost
15.00
$/mmBtu

10.00

5.00

0.00

Figure 4-19 Base Case LNG Bulk Partial Conversion Forecast (with Import Duty)

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-33


Section 4

Fuel Price Volatility


Fuel price volatility was projected based upon the range of potential fuel prices reflected
across cases presented in the EIA 2015 AEO. For this purpose, High Fuel Price and
Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on AEO scenarios that represent
the highest and lowest commodity price for each commodity that underpins the fuel in
question. Table 4-4 below provides the key defining the AEO scenarios that have been
used for the High and Low Fuel Price Scenarios utilized in the BELCO 2016 IRP.
Figures 4-20 through 4-23 provide a graphical representation of the fuel price scenarios
for each fuel type.

Table 4-4
Fuel Price Scenarios AEO Case Basis

Fuel Type AEO Case for High AEO Case for Low
Fuel Scenario Fuel Sceanrio

Light Fuel Oil (LFO) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) High Oil Price High Resource

Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)


60.00

BASE:

LOW:
50.00

HIGH

40.00
$/MMBtu

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Figure 4-20 Base, High and Low LFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

4-34 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)


50.00

BASE:
45.00

LOW:
40.00
HIGH

35.00

30.00
$/MMBtu

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Figure 4-21 Base, High and Low HFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate)


20.00

BASE:
18.00
LOW:

16.00
HIGH

14.00

12.00
$/MMBtu

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Figure 4-22 Base, High, and Low LPG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-35


Section 4

LNG Bulk (NYMEX Near Term)


25.00

BASE:

LOW:
20.00
HIGH

15.00
$/MMBtu

10.00

5.00

0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Figure 4-23 Base, High, and Low LNG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

It is critical to note that the volatility assumptions are being modeled such that they only
impact the commodity portion of BELCOs overall fuel cost (i.e., the volatility
assumptions would only be applied to the commodity component when developing the
high and low fuel price forecasts). The other components of BELCOs fuel cost
represent a significant portion of the fuel burden. For example, in the case of LNG, the
commodity component of fuel cost is approximately 22-24 percent of the total delivered
fuel cost (depending on whether a Partial or Full Conversion case is considered),
whereas the commodity component for LFO and HFO is 61 percent and 54 percent,
respectively. Legacy fuel volatility approaches prepared for BELCO in prior projects
remain available as needed when scenario development occurs.

4.9 Renewable Energy Portfolio Targets


While there currently is no mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), BELCO
and Leidos have partnered to align the IRP with the policy from the government
regarding the electricity sector released in June 2015. Appendix B summarizes the
capacity sizes selected for utility-scale renewable deployment. Renewable resource
options will be forced in to the dispatch model in certain cases (to be defined in
partnership with BELCO) with associated take as available dispatch profiles, and
Leidos will calculate the resultant proportion of energy and capacity served by
renewable resources resulting from those utility-scale options. The tractability of the

4-36 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

aspirational mix indicated in the updated government policy will be compared against
the dispatch cases.

4.10 Transmission System Constraints and Capital


Expenditures
BELCO has provided Leidos with a detailed spreadsheet summarizing projected capital
expenditures on the transmission and distribution system. Leidos has engaged in
discussions with BELCO personnel to discuss the details and timing of these
expenditures. Based on those discussions, the expenditures can be categorized as
follows:
Mission-Critical Expenditures These capital expenditures have been deemed
necessary irrespective of load growth or contraction or capacity additions over the
Study Period.
Load Growth Dependent Expenditures These capital expenditures are based on
potential new load additions and general load growth.
Integration Expenditures Beyond Central Plant These capital expenditures reflect
cost estimates to interconnect capacity additions that may occur outside the scope of
the Central Plant.
Given that the Mission Critical capital expenditures are anticipated to have an impact
on the BELCO rate base, and in an effort to fully capture power supply costs, these
expenditures will be included in the dispatch analysis as discrete costs. In addition,
based on information provided by BELCO, Leidos assumed approximately $25 million
in interconnection costs associated with utility-scale wind generation, and have included
that cost estimate as part of the overall cost of those resources. Based on information
provided by BELCO, Leidos assumed approximately $2.8 million, $1.1 million and
$11.7 million in interconnection costs associated with utility-scale PV generation for
the 5 MW, 5 MW (PPA) and 20 MW options, respectively, and have included that cost
estimate as part of the overall cost of those resources.

4.11 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources


In order to provide a holistic evaluation of the supply-side and demand-side resources,
and to ensure that non-monetary factors that are critical to the success of the IRP but not
quantified in the load dispatch modeling are carefully considered, the IRP process
includes a qualitative evaluation of each candidate resource. The qualitative assessment
criteria used as a basis for the evaluation and the maximum scores that are allocated to
each criterion have been developed specifically for this IRP and reflect BELCOs
interpretation of their significance. The results of the qualitative evaluation were
considered together with the results from the quantitative analysis in arriving at the
recommendations for the action plan arising from this IRP exercise. The importance of
the qualitative assessment is highlighted in the consideration of renewable energy
resources for the preferred expansion plan to address BELCOs sustainability objective,
since the least cost plan based on the quantitative analysis may exclude these resources.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-37


Section 4

Descriptions of the criteria used for the qualitative assessment along with the maximum
scores allocated to each one is provided in Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5
Qualitative Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description
Score
The degree to which the asset
1 Supply Quality enhances or reinforces system 20
reliability as a firm resource
The degree to which the asset will
Environmental
2 cause a reduction in the emission 20
Sustainability
of Greenhouse Gases by BELCO
The degree to which the asset
contributes to resource/fuel
Security and Cost diversity to make Bermuda
3 20
Resilience resilient to shocks caused by
dramatic changes in the cost and
availability of fuel
The degree to which the asset
4 Logistics provides for ease of logistics and 20
implementation
The degree to which the asset
contributes to the economic
5 Economic Development 20
Development for Bermuda with a
focus on job creation
Total Maximum Score 100
The results of the qualitative analysis are presented in Section 3 of this report. The
information gleaned from the qualitative analysis will be combined with the direct
financial implications of the dispatch cases and LCOE screening to inform the
recommended resource plan for BELCO in terms of short term, medium term, and long
term asset decisions. It is important to note that in some instances, qualitative factors
will bolster the relative standing of a given candidate resource, and in others, strictly
economic resources may score lower in key categories that reflect BELCOs current
resource planning environment.

4.12 Alignment with the National Electricity Sector Policy


of Bermuda
In June 2015, the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda was released
alongside a statement from the Bermuda Ministry of Economic Development. An
integrated process involving stakeholders from across Bermuda was deployed in order
to develop the policy, which aims to reinforce the central objective of providing reliable,
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The policy also

4-38 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

defines the boundaries and roles of the Regulatory Authority and the Electric Utility,
creating a roadmap to enable a collaborative, iterative planning effort that fosters further
development of distributed resources and proactively works towards a mature demand-
side management portfolio that can reduce long term energy usage in a cost-effective
manner.
According to the policy document, the planning paradigm for Bermudas long term
electricity sector resource development and procurement will be predicated upon an IRP
process as the foundational basis for making decisions. The utilitys role is defined as
providing bulk generation, as well as transmission, distribution, and retail services, with
additional participation by IPPs and distributed generators who may sell electricity to
the utility at economical rates and with tariff structures that ensure that the utility can
recover costs plus an equitable rate of return. The policy also defines an IRP review role
for the Regulatory Authority, which will be overseen by the government. The
Regulatory Authority will also be responsible for processing and considering feedback
on energy policy from end-users. If the Regulatory Authority is not satisfied that the
draft IRP meets this Policys objectives it submits questions or guidance to the Electric
Utility. The Electric Utility responds to questions and critiques by submitting a revised
draft IRP to the Regulatory Authority for reconsideration. This iterative process
continues until the Regulatory Authority is satisfied with the IRP and it is finalized.
The updated policy goes on to define an aspirational mix of future resources that
essentially encompass the boundary of resource options evaluated in this IRP, including
LNG resources, utility-scale and small-scale PV, cost-effective demand-side
management initiatives, the continued operation and expansion of the Tynes Bay waste-
to-energy facility, and future additional renewable resources that are hypothesized to be
cost competitive relative to LNG resources sometime in the future. The policy is careful
to note that as the Electric Utility endeavors to complete its IRP, reviews and revisions
to the aspirational mix using the best available data at the time the IRP is produced are
expected as part of the planning process. Consequently, investment decisions made
through the IRP process may differ from those shown in the aspirational mix, and there
are no specific penalties associated with deviation from a set standard. Table 4-6
provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of resources as a percent of total
energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the policy also assumes
approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side management initiatives):

Table 4-6
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Mix

Resource Type 2020 2025 2035


Natural Gas 92% 65% 62%
Waste-to-Energy 3% 3% 3%
Bulk-Scale Solar PV 2% 2% 2%
Distributed Solar PV 1% 2% 6%
Solar Water Heaters 2% 2% 2%
Future Renewable Energy (Undefined) 0% 26% 25%

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-39


Section 4

The policy also contains aspirational mix tables based on demand as well as carbon
abatement targets.
As an objective of the IRP, it was crucial to ensure alignment with the intent and
objectives of the updated energy policy. As a result of the holistic approach to resource
planning deployed, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying
Assumptions Document (Section 5 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the
aspirational mix within the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources
considered and the incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. As part
of the policy, an aspirational mix of resources relative to BAU conditions is delineated,
and the intent of the IRP is to estimate the cost of the BAU case as compared to
alternatives. Additionally, sensitivities with respect to carbon monetization and other
key long term levers can be executed as future IRP cases are defined in partnership with
BELCO, and as the IRP process becomes internalized.
The specific tactics that are deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the
policy include the following:
Holistic and diverse examination of feasible supply-side and demand-side resources,
including LNG, PV, battery storage, distributed generation in the form of CHP, and
the proposed DSM measures described herein, ensure alignment with the long-range
aspirational mix elucidated in the updated energy policy.
Detailed and transparent assumptions regarding load growth, capacity needs,
logistical constraints related to new capacity being integrated into the system, and
the modeling methodology deployed to evaluate the economics of options fosters the
iterative process of review of the IRP as envisioned in the policy.
Tables summarizing resource options cost and performance characteristics as
developed for the 2015 BELCO IRP can be compared to sources and assumptions
compiled as part of the updated energy policys cost estimates for the BAU and
aspirational mix cases.
Production cost modeling cases can be deployed to capture the aspirational mix,
recognizing the limitations of the as yet undefined future renewable resource; to
conquer that challenge, the component of the portfolio comprising the renewable
resource has been assumed to be cost-equivalent to LNG, which allows for the
analysis to capture the same cost implications using an LNG deployment case.
The qualitative analysis of each resource option provides further opportunity for
Energy Authority and other stakeholder commentary regarding the indirect benefits
attributable to certain resources.
Emissions rates of key resource options can be used to support cases associated with
carbon monetization or other emissions tracking that may be of interest to IRP
stakeholders as the IRP process is internalized.
The updated energy policy includes key assumptions related to the cost of LNG
infrastructure, the cost of future resource options, and the extent of DSM
participation that can be benchmarked to the results of the IRP in the iterative fashion
envisioned as part of the plan.

4-40 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

As noted above, all of these tactics are embedded in the IRP process and consequently,
there is no additional structure contemplated to be needed in order to be in alignment
with the updated policy. The public commentary and challenge mechanisms envisioned
by the policy that will involve IPPs as well as the public are best fostered through the
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report) and the IRP reporting structure used
in this report for the 2016 IRP.
It should be noted that the policy also requires a procurement plan as defined within the
boundary of the IRP. Once the IRP is completed, a procurement strategy and plan should
be developed around the resources that are selected within the IRP for downstream
consideration. BELCO has already engaged in scoping certain limited procurement
activities (e.g., battery storage RFP process, LNG facility feasibility study) that can be
leveraged to provide procurement guidance across the entire portfolio. Refer to Section
3 of this report for further details regarding the proposed procurement plan as suggested
by the results of the IRP.

4.13 Production Cost Case Definitions


Based on discussions with BELCO and the sum total of work conducted as delineated
in this report, the following cases are the subject of the production cost modeling, as
predicated on Base Case 16 assumptions across each of the inputs to the IRP (e.g. load,
fuel). It is important to note that while the definitions below capture certain decisions
which were prescribed, or deterministic in nature, all of the potential resources
considered in each case are defined. Some resources included in a case definition
ultimately may not have been modeled within a case as a result of evaluating the LCOE
tool results, among other indicators.
1. Business As Usual (Fuel Oil Case) this case is predicated upon the following:
a. addition of traditional (liquid fuel oil-fired resources) to replace existing
resources based on assumed retirement dates
b. the capacity expansion will serve BELCO load in a manner that minimizes
long term production cost given the available resources in each year
c. BESS resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct feedback
from BELCO
d. CHP resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct feedback from
BELCO
2. Energy Policy Aspirational Mix Case this case is based on a prescribed set of
resource additions that will attempt to mirror, as closely as possible, the
aspirational mix of generation promulgated by the June 2015 National Energy
Policy as released by the Bermuda government. With respect to the generic
renewable resource that remains undefined, the IRP relies upon the simplifying
assumption that such resource will be equivalent in cost to a natural gas resource
addition in the year in which the policy assumes that the generic renewable
resource will be added. This allows for the modeling of a generic renewable

16
The BESS system will be modeled at the low end of capital cost estimates (i.e. minus 15%).

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-41


Section 4

resource with the same characteristics as the natural gas option parameterized
herein.
3. Preliminary Least Cost Case this case reflects the preliminary least cost
combination of resources as determined by the production cost model as a
function of various simulations of combinations of resources.
4. Full Conversion LNG Case with Renewables and DSM this case is predicated
upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply to
Bermuda, including a pipeline for delivery of natural gas to the existing
central utility plant site and LNG pricing commensurate with the Potential
Supplier Estimate provided to Leidos by BELCO
b. the conversion of certain existing units to operate on LNG
i. the conversion of units E5, E6, E7, and E8
ii. the conversion of units GT5, GT6, GT7, and GT8
c. June 2018 Commission Phase 1 (N1-N3) of North Power Station (NPS)
installation of 3 DF units
i. Initial operation on HFO until conversion to natural gas (LNG) in 2020
ii. Facilitates the retirement of entire old power station (D3, D8, D10 and
early retirement of D14, D15) and units E1 & E2 in June 2017
d. January 2020 Commission Phase 2 (N4) of NPS installation of 1
additional DF unit
i. Facilitates the retirement of units E3&E4 in 2019
e. potential new supply side resources operating on LNG of a CT or CC type
to be located at the existing central utility plant site
f. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
g. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
h. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems screened out
due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out at 25 cents
per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end of the Study Period
and installed in annual increments of 1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year
horizon

4-42 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

5. Business as Usual (Fuel-Oil Case) with Renewables and DSM this case is
predicated upon the following:
a. Same capacity expansion options for thermal resources as Case 1
b. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
c. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
d. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems screened out
due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out at 25 cents
per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end of the Study Period
and installed in annual increments of 1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year
horizon
6. Partial Conversion LPG with Optimized Renewables and DSM this case is
predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LPG supply to
Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to accommodate the
installation of approximately 60 MW of LPG-fueled generation resources at
a new site, co-located with the LPG storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of certain existing units:
i. GT 5, 6, 7 & 8 remain on LFO
ii. E5-E8 remain on HFO operation until retirement
c. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
d. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
e. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems screened out
due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out at 25 cents
per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end of the Study Period
and installed in annual increments of 1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year horizon

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-43


Section 4

f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to supplement items


in (a)
7. Partial Conversion LNG with Renewables and DSM this case is predicated
upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply to
Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to accommodate the
installation of approximately 50 MW of LNG-fueled generation resources at
a new site, co-located with the LNG storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of any existing units:
c. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
d. Utility Scale PV (with a capacity of 28 MW-DC (25 MW-AC))
i. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
e. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems screened out
due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out at 25 cents
per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end of the Study Period
and installed in annual increments of 1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to supplement items
in (f)

Definition of Final Cases and Additional Desired Sensitivities


In addition to the Reference Case (Case 1), the Four Finalist Cases 17 subjected to the
sensitivities defined below are as follows:
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 4)
Fuel Oil Case (lowest production cost Fuel-Oil expansion plan) (Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG Case (logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG Case (logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 7)
The sensitivities applied to the selected cases are defined as follows:
1. Fuel Cost (based on 2015 EIA AEO range) based on discussions with BELCO,
High Fuel Price and Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on

17
Per discussions with BELCO, the Four Finalist Cases were selected from the ranking based on the
levelized cost results and were subjected to sensitivity scenarios.

4-44 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

AEO scenarios that represent the highest and lowest commodity price for each
commodity that underpins the fuel in question. As discussed further in Section
4.8, the scenario that represents the High Fuel Price Case for LFO, HFO, LPG,
and LNG is the 2015 AEO High Oil Case; the Low Fuel Price Case is based on
the AEO Low Oil Case for HFO, RFO, and LPG but is based on the AEO High
Resource case for LNG.
2. Carbon Monetization Leidos has researched an updated March 2016 report
from Synapse that captures a revised view on potential carbon prices this
reports pricing is applied to each production cost models results on the back
end, in addition to reporting related to the actual tons of carbon emitted for each
case.
3. WACC - The IRP evaluates 10.5 percent as the high case (reflecting more
upside risk on interest rates and potentially less gearing with less favorable
regulation) and 9.0 percent as the low case.
4. N-2 vs. N-3 This is self-explanatory; however, this sensitivity is NOT applied
to the Base/Reference Case, as there is no BESS considered in the
Base/Reference Case.
5. High and Low Load Forecast The IRP evaluated a High and Low forecast.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while
the Low Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-
term rate of decline of 0.4 percent per year.

4.14 Carbon Monetization Pricing


Table 4-7 below summarizes the carbon pricing to be used in the Carbon Monetization
sensitivities for the Base, High, and Low Cases as based on a March 2016 Synapse study
that estimates a hypothetical price for carbon emissions. The Synapse carbon projection
is based on a series of analyses and assumptions regarding the possibility of a mature
carbon market within the mainland US. The March 2016 projection takes the recent
stay of the Clean Power Plan, the landmark carbon legislation proposed by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, into consideration. However, the report does not
anticipate that the stay will ultimately reverse the trajectory towards some form of
nationwide cap and trade system or carbon tax, and notes that some states continue to
work towards compliance plans despite the stay, and amidst heightened uncertainty
regarding the actual timing of compliance requirements. Prices are shown
commensurate with the defined Study Period.

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 4-45


Section 4

Table 4-7
Summary of Assumed Carbon Pricing
Low Case Base Case High Case
Year ($2015 per ton) ($2015 per ton) ($2015 per ton)

2017 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


2018 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2019 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2020 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2021 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2022 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00
2023 $15.75 $20.75 $26.00
2024 $16.50 $21.50 $27.00
2025 $17.25 $22.25 $28.00
2026 $18.00 $23.00 $29.00
2027 $18.75 $23.75 $30.00
2028 $19.50 $24.50 $34.25
2029 $20.25 $25.25 $38.50
2030 $21.00 $26.00 $42.75
2031 $21.75 $29.00 $47.00
2032 $22.50 $32.00 $51.25
2033 $23.25 $35.00 $55.50
2034 $24.00 $38.00 $59.75
2035 $24.75 $41.00 $64.00
2036 $25.50 $44.00 $68.25

4-46 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16


APPENDICES to
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN

Bermuda Electric Light Company

June 30, 2016



Table of Contents
Appendices

APPENDIX A - Load Forecast

APPENDIX B - Resource Characteristics

APPENDIX C Fuel Price Projections

APPENDIX D Detailed Levelized Cost of Energy and Scenario Results


D1 Levelized Cost of Energy
D2 Case Unit Matrix
D3 Case 1 Results
D4 Case 2 Results
D5 Case 3 Results
D6 Case 4 Results
D7 Case 5 Results
D8 Case 6 Results
D9 Case 7 Results

APPENDIX E Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Scoring

E1 Qualitative Scoring of Candidate Resource Types


E2 Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Scoring

APPENDIX F Discussion Document: Candidate Resources Requiring More


In-Depth Study

Appendix A
LOAD FORECAST

BELCO 2016 Load Forecast: Base Case AppendixA
Historical and Projected Annual Energy for Load and System Peak Demand
(Years 2009-2035)

Energy for Load System Peak Demand


Actual Percent Wthr Norm Percent Wthr Norm Actual Percent Load Wthr Norm Percent Wthr Norm
Year (MWh) Change (MWh) Change Impact (MW) Change Factor (MW) Change Impact
2009 738,455 728,846 1.3% 122.3 69% 118.1 3.4%
2010 730,224 1.1% 724,600 0.6% 0.8% 122.8 0.4% 68% 123.3 4.4% 0.4%
Historical

2011 716,784 1.8% 711,982 1.7% 0.7% 118.2 3.7% 69% 116.2 5.7% 1.6%
2012 688,179 4.0% 691,902 2.8% 0.5% 113.7 3.8% 69% 111.6 4.0% 1.8%
2013 665,204 3.3% 669,289 3.3% 0.6% 110.1 3.2% 69% 108.6 2.7% 1.4%
2014 648,863 2.5% 651,471 2.7% 0.4% 106.8 3.0% 69%
2015 662,307 2.1% 652,385 0.1% 1.5% 108.0 1.1% 70%
2016 660,699 0.2% 109.0 0.9% 69%
2017 664,917 0.6% 109.7 0.6% 69%
2018 665,790 0.1% 110.0 0.3% 69%
2019 667,921 0.3% 110.4 0.3% 69%
2020 669,929 0.3% 110.7 0.3% 69%
2021 671,942 0.3% 111.0 0.3% 69%
2022 673,962 0.3% 111.4 0.3% 69%
2023 675,988 0.3% 111.7 0.3% 69%
2024 678,019 0.3% 112.0 0.3% 69%
Projected

2025 680,057 0.3% 112.4 0.3% 69%


2026 682,101 0.3% 112.7 0.3% 69%
2027 684,151 0.3% 113.1 0.3% 69%
2028 686,207 0.3% 113.4 0.3% 69%
2029 688,270 0.3% 113.7 0.3% 69%
2030 690,338 0.3% 114.1 0.3% 69%
2031 692,413 0.3% 114.4 0.3% 69%
2032 694,494 0.3% 114.8 0.3% 69%
2033 696,581 0.3% 115.1 0.3% 69%
2034 698,675 0.3% 115.4 0.3% 69%
2035 700,775 0.3% 115.8 0.3% 69%
2009-2015 1.8% 2.1% 69%
AAGR

2016-2025 0.3% 0.3% 69%


2026-2035 0.3% 0.3% 69%

BELCO_2016LoadForecast_20160501.xlsx

Appendix B
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

Appendix B1
EXISTING RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016
ExistingGeneratingResourceCharacteristics
Appendix B1

Plant Name
Unit No Units E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Prime Mover (see below) IC-SSD IC-SSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO)
Secondary Fuel Type Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Propane conversion possible N N N N N
Natural gas conversion possible N N N N Y
Unit Status (see below) OP OP OP OP OP
Commercial In-Service Date 7/1/1984 3/1/1985 11/1/1989 9/1/1989 4/1/2000
Hours Run (as of Feb 2013) 200,602 187,001 159,585 156,461 97,359
Planned Retirement Date After Peak of Year 2018 2018 2019 2019 2030
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018
Must Run? Y/N Y Y N N N
Cogen? Y/N N N N N N

Minimum Load Net Capability


Summer / Winter MW 8.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 7.00

Full-Load Net Capability


Max Rating MW 12.20 11.20 10.10 9.50 14.30
%'age of time at rating (2012)
4-5 MW
5-6 MW 1.7%
6-7 MW 5.1% 0.0%
7-8 MW 37.3% 0.0%
8-9 MW 0.5% 6.6%
9 - 10 MW 2.5% 14.0% 91.6%
10 - 11 MW 0.0% 6.0% 42.9%
11 - 12 MW 94.3% 93.4% 10.5%
12 - 13 MW 3.1% 24.7%
13-14 MW 10.5%
>14 MW 53.8%

Average Net Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh 8,556 8,638 8,521 8,336 8,156
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,556 8,638 8,737 9,162 8,718
Incremental Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh

Emission Rates (after control):


SO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 4.66 4.66 4.76 4.76 5.70
NOx Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 9.00 9.00 9.19 9.19 10.35
CO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 173.72 173.72 173.72 173.72 173.72

O&M Costs:
Variable O&M (w/o Emiss or Start Costs) $/MWh 9.40 9.40 11.10 11.10 11.10
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 24.00 24.00 18.00 18.00 18.00

Startup:
Startup Maint. & Labor $/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Start Fuel MMBtu/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Typical Operation hours/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $/kW-yr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Book Value 0 0 0 0 6,389,509
Final Depreciation Date 2004 2004 2009 2009 2029
Years of Debt Service Remaining (2014 on) Years 0 0 0 0 15

Transmission/Distribution Costs $/kW-yr

Actual Availability:
2011 81.7% 87.5% 89.8% 94.2% 93.2%
2012 76.4% 83.4% 79.5% 89.0% 86.9%
Planned Availability (i.e. planned scheduled
maintenance outage time)
2011 92.6% 94.3% 94.0% 96.4% 96.2%
2012 88.8% 91.5% 98.4% 96.4% 92.6%

Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 3,000 hours

Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 12,000 hours 12,000 hours 13,500 hours 13,500 hours 12,000 hours
(Intermediate service planned duration ~1-2 weeks)

PROMODAssumptions_20160629
BELCOIRP2016
ExistingGeneratingResourceCharacteristics
Appendix B1

Plant Name
Unit No Units E6 E7 E8 D3 D8
Prime Mover (see below) IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible N N N N N
Natural gas conversion possible Y Y Y Y Y
Unit Status (see below) OP OP OP OP OP
Commercial In-Service Date 4/1/2000 4/1/2005 4/1/2005 12/1/1982 11/1/1979
Hours Run (as of Feb 2013) 96,360 55,316 60,203 190,098 198,204
Planned Retirement Date After Peak of Year 2030 2035 2035 2018 2018
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018
Must Run? Y/N N N N N N
Cogen? Y/N N N N N N

Minimum Load Net Capability


Summer / Winter MW 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 4.00

Full-Load Net Capability


Max Rating MW 14.30 14.30 14.30 7.00 7.00
%'age of time at rating (2012)
4-5 MW
5-6 MW 10.3% 13.4%
6-7 MW 65.2% 1.0%
7-8 MW 24.5% 85.6%
8-9 MW 0.6%
9 - 10 MW 1.3% 3.5%
10 - 11 MW 0.1% 0.0%
11 - 12 MW 7.6% 0.4%
12 - 13 MW 1.8% 0.3% 9.4%
13-14 MW 2.3% 6.6% 0.0%
>14 MW 86.4% 88.7% 90.6%

Average Net Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh 8,132 7,948 7,900 9,364 8,598
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,711 8,420 8,200 9,790 8,759
Incremental Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh

Emission Rates (after control):


SO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 5.70 5.51 5.51 6.41 6.41
NOx Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 10.35 10.00 10.00 11.62 11.62
CO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 173.72 173.72 173.72 161.27 161.27

O&M Costs:
Variable O&M (w/o Emiss or Start Costs) $/MWh 11.10 11.10 11.10 11.10 11.10
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00

Startup:
Startup Maint. & Labor $/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Start Fuel MMBtu/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Typical Operation hours/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $/kW-yr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Book Value 6,389,509 3,157,628 3,157,628 0 0
Final Depreciation Date 2029 2035 2035 1999 1999
Years of Debt Service Remaining (2014 on) Years 15 21 21 0 0

Transmission/Distribution Costs $/kW-yr

Actual Availability:
2011 83.3% 85.7% 90.8% 94.4% 83.4%
2012 82.8% 79.3% 76.2% 94.2% 81.4%
Planned Availability (i.e. planned scheduled
maintenance outage time)
2011 94.3% 93.7% 93.4% 96.2% 98.1%
2012 91.8% 95.6% 94.0% 96.4% 96.2%

Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 4,500 hours

Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 12,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours
(Intermediate service planned duration ~1-2 weeks)

PROMODAssumptions_20160629
BELCOIRP2016
ExistingGeneratingResourceCharacteristics
Appendix B1

Plant Name
Unit No Units D10 D14 D15 GT6 GT7
Prime Mover (see below) IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD GT GT
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible N N N Y Y
Natural gas conversion possible Y Y Y Y Y
Unit Status (see below) OP OP OP OP OP
Commercial In-Service Date 2/1/1980 11/1/1995 11/1/1995 6/1/2010 6/1/2010
Hours Run (as of Feb 2013) 199,732 48,573 48,081 1,523 1,774
Planned Retirement Date After Peak of Year 2018 2020 2015 2035 2035
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 2015 2035 2035
Must Run? Y/N N N N N N
Cogen? Y/N N N N N N

Minimum Load Net Capability


Summer / Winter MW 4.00 3.00 3.00

Full-Load Net Capability


Max Rating MW 7.00 4.50 5.00 4.50 4.50
%'age of time at rating (2012)
4-5 MW 62.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5-6 MW 32.6% 100.0%
6-7 MW 0.0%
7-8 MW 5.2%
8-9 MW
9 - 10 MW
10 - 11 MW
11 - 12 MW
12 - 13 MW
13-14 MW
>14 MW

Average Net Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh 8,640 9,185 9,188 11,400 11,400
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,901 9,435 9,435
Incremental Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh

Emission Rates (after control):


SO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 6.41 6.17 6.17 0.87 0.87
NOx Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 11.62 11.20 11.20 0.11 0.11
CO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 161.27 161.27 161.27 161.27 161.27

O&M Costs:
Variable O&M (w/o Emiss or Start Costs) $/MWh 11.10 11.10 11.10 7.80 7.80
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.80 0.80
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 18.00 18.00 18.00 9.60 9.60

Startup:
Startup Maint. & Labor $/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Start Fuel MMBtu/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Typical Operation hours/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $/kW-yr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Book Value 0 1,424,465 1,434,642 4,482,007 4,482,007
Final Depreciation Date 1999 2020 2020 2035 2035
Years of Debt Service Remaining (2014 on) Years 0 6 6 21 21

Transmission/Distribution Costs $/kW-yr

Actual Availability:
2011 95.9% 93.0% 90.1% 83.3% 99.0%
2012 90.8% 79.5% 69.6% 66.6% 97.1%
Planned Availability (i.e. planned scheduled
maintenance outage time)
2011 98.1% 98.1% 87.4%
2012 97.5% 97.8% 100.0%

Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 4,500 hours Every 4,000 hours Every 4,000 hours Twice a year Twice a year

Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 18,000 hours 16,000 hours 16,000 hours
(Intermediate service planned duration ~1-2 weeks)

PROMODAssumptions_20160629
BELCOIRP2016
ExistingGeneratingResourceCharacteristics
Appendix B1

Plant Name
Unit No Units GT8 GT4 GT5 GT3E GT3F
Prime Mover (see below) GT GT GT GT GT
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible Y N Y N N
Natural gas conversion possible Y Y Y Y Y
Unit Status (see below) OP OP OP OP OP
Commercial In-Service Date 6/1/2010 7/1/1989 9/1/1995 6/1/1995 6/1/1995
Hours Run (as of Feb 2013) 1,590 51,117 31,250 3,613 4,113
Planned Retirement Date After Peak of Year 2035 2016 2025 2015 2015
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 2035 2016 2025 2015 2015
Must Run? Y/N N N N N N
Cogen? Y/N N N N N N

Minimum Load Net Capability


Summer / Winter MW

Full-Load Net Capability


Max Rating MW 4.50 11.00 13.00 2.50 2.50
%'age of time at rating (2012)
4-5 MW 100.0%
5-6 MW
6-7 MW
7-8 MW
8-9 MW
9 - 10 MW
10 - 11 MW
11 - 12 MW 100.0%
12 - 13 MW
13-14 MW 100.0%
>14 MW

Average Net Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh 11,400 11,899 11,315 12,728 12,728
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh
Incremental Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh

Emission Rates (after control):


SO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.97
NOx Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13
CO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 161.27 161.27 161.27 161.27 161.27

O&M Costs:
Variable O&M (w/o Emiss or Start Costs) $/MWh 7.80 6.60 6.60 7.80 7.80
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 0.80 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 9.60 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40

Startup:
Startup Maint. & Labor $/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Start Fuel MMBtu/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Typical Operation hours/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $/kW-yr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Book Value 4,482,007 0 1,251,104 0 0
Final Depreciation Date 2035 2010 2016 2006 2006
Years of Debt Service Remaining (2014 on) Years 21 0 0 0 0

Transmission/Distribution Costs $/kW-yr

Actual Availability:
2011 95.5% 91.9% 99.6% 88.6% 99.4%
2012 97.2% 99.8% 99.0% 99.7% 99.1%
Planned Availability (i.e. planned scheduled
maintenance outage time)
2011
2012

Dependent on Dependent on
Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Twice a year number of starts number of starts Quarterly Quarterly
~Every year ~Every year

Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks)
(Intermediate service planned duration ~1-2 weeks)

PROMODAssumptions_20160629
Appendix B2
SUPPLYSIDE CANDIDATE RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS1a PS1b PS1c
ICMSD ICMSD ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit New1unit New1unit
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilH(HFO) OilH(HFO) NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Apr48 Apr48 Jan50
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 7,000 7,000 7,000

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 14,340 13,676 13,676
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 14,000 13,300 13,300

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 7,900 8,000 8,260


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 8,480 8,600 8,870

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00 6.00 6.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 6.35 0.06 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 8.60 0.91 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 173.72 173.72 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 11.516 11.516 11.516
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 1.57 1.57 1.57
FixedO&M $/kWyr 18.845 18.845 18.845

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,531 1,765 1,765
Owner'sCost % 10% 10% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,684 1,942 1,942

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours Every3,000hours Every3,000hours

MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS2a PS2c PS2d
GT GT GT
PrimeMover(seebelow) New New New
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilL(LFO) LPGdelivered NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan18 Apr18 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan48 2050 2050
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 9,400 9,100 9,400

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 14,491 13,994 14,491
%AuxiliaryLoads % 0.7% 2.1% 0.7%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 14,400 13,700 14,400

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 11,110 11,490 11,490


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 14,850 15,360 15,360

MinimumUpTime Hours none none none


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 4.80 4.80 4.80
RampDownRate MW/min 4.80 4.80 4.80

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.79 0.29 0.29
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 8.10 2.99 2.99
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 161.27 139.05 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 0.000 0.000 0.000
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 1.66 1.66 1.66
FixedO&M $/kWyr 19.892 19.892 19.892

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,001 1,314 1,001
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 5%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,051 1,380 1,051

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 95.0% 95% 95.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 3.0% 3% 3.0%
2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description
30KMajor 30KMajor 30KMajor
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS3a PS3b PS3d
CC(1x1) CC(1x1) CC(1x1)
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit New1unit New1unit
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilL(LFO) LPGBulk LPGdelivered
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Apr18
PlannedRetirementDate Apr48 Apr48 Apr48
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 11,600 12,700 12,700

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 17,891 19,597 19,597
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.7% 3.7% 3.7%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 17,400 18,900 18,900

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,050 8,350 8,350


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 9,940 10,310 10,310

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00 none none


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 4.80 4.8 4.8
RampDownRate MW/min 4.80 4.8 4.8

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.57 0.21 0.21
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 5.86 2.17 2.17
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 161.27 139.05 139.05

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 3.141 3.141 3.141
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 7.26 7.26 7.26
FixedO&M $/kWyr 87.062 87.062 87.062

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,418 1,897 1,897
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 5%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,489 1,991 1,991

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 5.0% 5.0% 5%
2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description
30KMajor 30KMajor 30KMajor
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS3e PS4a1 PS4c
1

CC(1x1) SL SL
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit Utility Utility
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG SOL SOL
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Apr18 Apr19
PlannedRetirementDate Jan50 Jan45 Mar44
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 11,600

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 17,891 5,000 20,000
%AuxiliaryLoads % 3.7%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 17,200 5,000 20,000

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,350


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 10,310

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none
RampUpRate MW/min 4.80
RampDownRate MW/min 4.80

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.21 none none
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 2.17 none none
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 116.98 none none

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 3.141
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 7.26 3.69 3.34
FixedO&M $/kWyr 87.062 44.293 40.117

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,418 4,267 4,267
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 5%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,489 4,480 4,480

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW 562 585


Transmission/DistributionCosts $ 2,810,000 11,700,000

Availability: 90.0% 99.0% 99.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 5.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2outagesperyear+ InverterReplacement InverterReplacement
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description
30KMajor at15years at15years
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor % 60.0% 60.0%
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.8% 0.8%
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 1,447,000 4,535,000
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo
1
CandidateResource Units PS4d PS5 PS6a1
SL BY
WT
PrimeMover(seebelow) Utility(PPA) SpinResBackup
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) SOL WND OTH
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr19 Jun20 Aug17
PlannedRetirementDate Mar44 Jun40 Aug37
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 5,000 20,000 12MW@15min
%AuxiliaryLoads %
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5,000 20,000 12MW@15min

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh
AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh

MinimumUpTime Hours none


MinimumDownTime Hours none
RampUpRate MW/min none
RampDownRate MW/min none

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 250.000
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 0.00 10.47 1.93
FixedO&M $/kWyr 125.631 23.125

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 5,250 500
Owner'sCost % 8% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 0 5,650 550

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW 220 1,250


Transmission/DistributionCosts $ 1,100,000 25,000,000

Availability: 99.0% 95.0% 98.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 1.0% 3.0% 1.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description 2outagesperyear

MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor % 60.0%
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.8%
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 4,000,000
CapacityFactor % 35.0%
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo E5
CandidateResource Units PS6b1 PS6c
1
PS7aa
BY BY ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) RenewSupport RenewSupport Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OTH OTH NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr19 Apr19 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Aug39 Aug39 Jan33
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 7,000

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 5MW@60min 1.5MW@60min 13,676
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5MW@60min 1.5MW@60min 13,300

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,260


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 8,870

MinimumUpTime Hours none none 6.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min none none 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min none none 1.75

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 11.516
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 2.75 3.17 1.57
FixedO&M $/kWyr 33.000 38.000 18.845

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,500 1,000 247
Owner'sCost % 10% 10% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,650 1,100 272

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 96.0% 96.0% 90.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 1.0% 1.0% 4.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours

MajorServiceat:
InverterReplacement InverterReplacement
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
inyear10 inyear10
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 1,400,000 420,000
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo E6 E7 E8
CandidateResource Units PS7ab PS7ac PS7ad
ICMSD ICMSD ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan33 Jan36 Jan36
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 7,000 7,000 7,000

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 13,676 13,676 13,676
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 13,300 13,300 13,300

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,260 8,260 8,260


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 8,870 8,870 8,870

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00 6.00 6.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.91 0.91 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 116.98 116.98 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 11.516 11.516 11.516
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 1.57 1.57 1.57
FixedO&M $/kWyr 18.845 18.845 18.845

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 247 247 247
Owner'sCost % 10% 10% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 272 272 272

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours Every3,000hours Every3,000hours

MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo GT5 GT6 GT7


CandidateResource Units PS7ca PS7cb PS7cc
GT GT GT
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) LPGdelivered LPGdelivered LPGdelivered
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Apr18
PlannedRetirementDate Apr26 Apr36 Apr36
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 6,500 2,600 2,600

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 13,000 5,258 5,258
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5% 1.0% 1.0%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 12,700 5,200 5,200

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 11,320 11,690 11,690


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 15,050 15,550 15,550

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.0 6.0 6.0


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min
RampDownRate MW/min

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 4.57 4.57 4.57
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.01 0.01 0.01
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 139.05 139.05 139.05

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 6.910 8.166 8.166
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 1.78 0.84 0.84
FixedO&M $/kWyr 21.357 10.050 10.050

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 231 231 231
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 5%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 242 242 242

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 95% 95% 95%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 2% 2% 2%
Dependenton
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description numberofstarts Twiceayear Twiceayear
~Everyyear
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo GT8 GT5 GT6


CandidateResource Units PS7cd PS7da PS7db
GT GT GT
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) LPGdelivered NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Apr36 Jan28 Jan38
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 2,600 6,500 2,600

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 5,258 13,000 5,258
%AuxiliaryLoads % 1.0% 2.5% 1.0%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5,200 12,700 5,200

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 11,690 11,320 11,690


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 15,550 15,050 15,550

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.0 1.00 1.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min
RampDownRate MW/min

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 4.57 4.57 4.57
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.01 0.01 0.01
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 139.05 116.98 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 8.166 6.910 8.166
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 0.84 1.78 0.84
FixedO&M $/kWyr 10.050 21.357 10.050

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 231 121 121
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 5%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 242 127 127

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 95% 95.0% 95.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 2% 2.0% 2.0%
Dependenton
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Twiceayear numberofstarts Twiceayear
~Everyyear
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics

ExistingUnitNo GT7 GT8


CandidateResource Units PS7dc PS7dd PS12
GT GT ICRecip
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel New4units
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan38 Jan38
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 2,600 2,600 14,250

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 5,258 5,258 58,528
%AuxiliaryLoads % 1.0% 1.0% 4.0%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5,200 5,200 56,000

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 11,690 11,690 8,492


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 15,550 15,550 9,765

MinimumUpTime Hours 1.00 1.00 6.00


MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min 1.75

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 4.57 4.57 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.01 0.01 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 116.98 116.98 116.98

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 8.166 8.166 6.300
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 0.84 0.84 2.98
FixedO&M $/kWyr 10.050 10.050 35.714

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 121 121 1,281
Owner'sCost % 5% 5% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 127 127 1,409

Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $

Availability: 95.0% 95.0% 94.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Twiceayear Twiceayear Every1500hours

MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.0%
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
Appendix B3
DEMANDSIDE CANDIDATE RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016
Appendix B3
DemandSideCandidateResourceCharacteristics

PlantName
UnitNo Units DSM1a1 DSM1b1 DSM2b DSM2d DSM3a
1
DSM3b1 DSM3c1
SL SL SL SL SL
CCHP CHP
PrimeMover(seebelow) DistElec DistElec DistH2O DistH2O DistH2O
Make Res Comm Res Res Res
Model Base High Low
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) SOL LPGBulk LNGBulk SOL SOL SOL
CommercialInServiceDate Jan17 Jan17 Jan18 Jan20 Jan17 Jan17 Jan17
PlannedRetirementDate Jan42 Jan42 Jun36 Jun36 Jan37 Jan37 Jan37
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

FullLoadNetCapability
MaxRating kW 1.720 86.000 1,870 2,469 3.240 3.240 3.240
Electriccoolingloaddisplaced kW 360 0
TotalLoadImpact kW 2,230 2,469

AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 12,028 8,818


AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 16,000 9,419

EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.29 0.29
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.12 0.90
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 381.21 376.89

O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 0.00 0.00 12.13 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 3.03 1.69 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30
FixedO&M $/kWyr 36.40 20.22 0.00 0.00 15.60 15.60 15.60

Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start
StartFuel MMBtu/start
TypicalOperation hours/start

CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel $/kW 5,093 4,651 3,943 1,125 2,808 2,808 2,808
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 5,093 4,651 4,534 1,294 2,808 2,808 2,808

Interconnection/InstallationCost(otherthancapital) $/kWyr

Availability: 99.0% 99.0% 92.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


AnnualForcedOutageRate % 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
MinorO/H@
MinorO/H@
40kophours&
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description 30k&Major@ None None None
Major@85kop
80kophours
hours
MajorServiceat: MinorO/H@ Majorservice7 Replacemajor Replacemajor Replacemajor
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks) 30k&Major@ days,Minor componentsin componentsin componentsin
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks) 80kophours service3days year13 year13 year13

$2550K
inLTSAVOM
CostofMajorMaintenance(ifapplicable) 0 0 depending 0 0 0
above
$ uponissues
DurationMajorMaintenance(ifapplicable) HrsorWks/Yr

Steambyproduct
temperature F 250
flowrate lb/hr 3,500
mmBtu/hr MMBtu/Hr 8.000 3.434
price $/mmBtu

CoincidencePeakfactor % 60.0% 60.0% 3.9% 4.3% 3.2%


DegradationFactor %/Yr 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.

PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
Appendix C
FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C1
BASE CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
BaseCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.07 18.33 18.34 18.61 18.86 19.25 19.65 20.09 20.54 20.99 21.49 21.97 22.53 23.08 23.66 24.23 24.81 25.42
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 19.32 20.03 20.50 21.26 22.04 23.00 24.01 25.10 26.23 27.41 28.69 29.99 31.45 32.95 34.54 36.16 37.86 39.67
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 11.8% 3.7% 2.3% 3.7% 3.6% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8%
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal 1.25 1.39 1.38
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 20.7% 10.9% 0.2%
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 52.59 58.31 58.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 57.42 63.66 63.51 65.89 68.29 71.26 74.40 77.78 81.28 84.95 88.91 92.94 97.46 102.10 107.02 112.05 117.33 122.93
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 9.69 10.74 10.72 11.12 11.52 12.02 12.55 13.12 13.71 14.33 15.00 15.68 16.44 17.23 18.06 18.91 19.80 20.74
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Throughput $/mmBtu 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33
Freight&Supply $/bbl 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.22 5.34 5.46 5.59 5.71 5.84 5.97 6.11 6.24 6.38 6.53 6.67 6.82 6.98 7.13
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.20
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.86 17.95 17.96 18.40 18.85 19.39 19.97 20.58 21.22 21.88 22.60 23.33 24.14 24.98 25.86 26.76 27.70 28.70

BaseCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 10.88 10.46 10.51 10.77 11.02 11.36 11.71 12.07 12.44 12.82 13.22 13.63 14.04 14.47 14.92 15.41 15.89 16.34
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 11.63 11.43 11.74 12.31 12.88 13.57 14.30 15.07 15.89 16.74 17.65 18.61 19.60 20.66 21.78 23.00 24.25 25.50
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 1.9% 1.7% 2.7% 4.8% 4.7% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.2%
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 28.72 34.43 38.80
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 29.5% 19.9% 12.7%
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 38.81 46.54 52.44 54.95 57.51 60.59 63.86 67.30 70.94 74.74 78.83 83.08 87.52 92.25 97.25 102.68 108.27 113.86
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 6.17 7.40 8.34 8.74 9.15 9.64 10.16 10.70 11.28 11.89 12.54 13.21 13.92 14.67 15.47 16.33 17.22 18.11
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.55 1.58
Freight&Supply $/bbl 8.35 8.54 8.73 8.93 9.13 9.33 9.54 9.76 9.98 10.20 10.43 10.67 10.91 11.15 11.40 11.66 11.92 12.19
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.52 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.85 1.90 1.94
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 13.71 14.99 15.99 16.44 16.91 17.46 18.04 18.65 19.29 19.96 20.67 21.42 22.19 23.02 23.89 24.82 25.79 26.75

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

BaseCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 20.48 21.63 22.70 24.75 25.85 26.53 27.23 28.03 28.82 29.64 30.55 31.43 32.31 33.27 34.25 35.34 36.52 37.67
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.0% 5.6% 4.9% 9.0% 4.4% 2.6% 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 4.66 4.70 4.68 5.11 5.33 5.47 5.62 5.78 5.95 6.12 6.30 6.48 6.67 6.86 7.07 7.29 7.54 7.77
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.58 4.68 4.78 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.23 5.35 5.47 5.59 5.72
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.51 1.54 1.58 1.61 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.14 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.62 1.68 1.73
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 12.01 12.57 12.89 13.10 13.42 13.77 14.12 14.48 14.86 15.24 15.62 16.03 16.45 16.90 17.37 17.84

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

BaseCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 20.48 21.63 22.70 24.75 25.85 26.53 27.23 28.03 28.82 29.64 30.55 31.43 32.31 33.27 34.25 35.34 36.52 37.67
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.0% 5.6% 4.9% 9.0% 4.4% 2.6% 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 4.66 4.70 4.68 5.11 5.33 5.47 5.62 5.78 5.95 6.12 6.30 6.48 6.67 6.86 7.07 7.29 7.54 7.77
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.16 5.18 5.20 5.21 5.23 5.35 5.37 5.39 5.41 5.43 5.45 5.48 5.50 5.52 5.55 5.57 5.59
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.14 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.62 1.68 1.73
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 15,000
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2018
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0.00 0.00 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 11.64 12.18 12.48 12.68 12.98 13.21 13.44 13.68 13.94 14.19 14.44 14.72 15.00 15.30 15.64 15.96

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

BaseCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.95 4.16 4.71 5.20 5.70 6.00 6.22 6.55 6.83 7.13 7.57 7.74 7.91 8.15 8.31 8.82 9.30 9.79
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.4% 5.2% 13.2% 10.5% 9.6% 5.1% 3.7% 5.4% 4.2% 4.3% 6.2% 2.2% 2.3% 3.0% 1.9% 6.3% 5.4% 5.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94 3.22 3.39 3.51 3.70 3.86 4.02 4.27 4.37 4.47 4.60 4.69 4.98 5.25 5.53
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 6.90 7.06 7.22 7.38 7.54 7.71 7.89 8.07 8.25 8.43 8.62 8.82 9.01 9.22 9.42 9.64 9.85 10.07
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 2.60 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.84 2.90 2.97 3.03 3.10 3.17 3.24 3.32 3.39 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.71 3.79
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.92 1.96 2.01 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.19
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 18.32 18.75 19.43 19.98 20.49 21.08 21.64 22.22 22.91 23.43 23.95 24.53 25.06 25.85 26.62 27.41

BaseCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.95 4.16 4.71 5.20 5.70 6.00 6.22 6.55 6.83 7.13 7.57 7.74 7.91 8.15 8.31 8.82 9.30 9.79
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.4% 5.2% 13.2% 10.5% 9.6% 5.1% 3.7% 5.4% 4.2% 4.3% 6.2% 2.2% 2.3% 3.0% 1.9% 6.3% 5.4% 5.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94 3.22 3.39 3.51 3.70 3.86 4.02 4.27 4.37 4.47 4.60 4.69 4.98 5.25 5.53
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.83
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 113,771 Adjustedfrom2014$to2020$basedonhistorical&projectedCPI(tobeg2019)
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.55 13.93 14.26 14.68 15.05 15.45 15.96 16.26 16.58 16.95 17.25 17.85 18.41 18.99

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

BaseCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.95 4.16 4.71 5.20 5.70 6.00 6.22 6.55 6.83 7.13 7.57 7.74 7.91 8.15 8.31 8.82 9.30 9.79
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.4% 5.2% 13.2% 10.5% 9.6% 5.1% 3.7% 5.4% 4.2% 4.3% 6.2% 2.2% 2.3% 3.0% 1.9% 6.3% 5.4% 5.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94 3.22 3.39 3.51 3.70 3.86 4.02 4.27 4.37 4.47 4.60 4.69 4.98 5.25 5.53
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.83
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000) 113,771
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000) (19,180)
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000) (9,800)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) 84,792
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 0 0 0 0 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 0 0 0 0 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 0 0 0 0 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.37 14.76 15.09 15.52 15.90 16.30 16.82 17.13 17.45 17.82 18.14 18.74 19.31 19.89

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor
BaseCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 26.05 26.70 27.35 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 41.57 43.56 45.62 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % Calc
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 EIA
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 0.00 0.00 0.00 EnergyVelocity
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 128.82 134.97 141.37 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162017(fromEV);EIAAEO2018andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 21.73 22.77 23.85 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 8.04 8.23 8.41 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.36 1.39 1.42 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 7.30 7.46 7.63 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.23 1.26 1.29 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 29.76 30.85 31.99 Calc

BaseCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 16.88 17.39 17.92 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 26.93 28.38 29.89 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.6% 5.4% 5.3% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 120.23 126.70 133.46 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162018(fromEV);EIAAEO2019andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 19.12 20.15 21.23 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 10.18 10.41 10.64 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.62 1.66 1.69 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 12.46 12.74 13.03 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.98 2.03 2.07 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 27.85 28.96 30.11 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

BaseCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.57 24.80 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 38.86 40.09 41.36 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.73 0.76 0.78 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 8.02 8.27 8.54 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.53 0.55 0.56 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.84 5.98 6.11 Calc
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.17 0.18 0.18 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.88 1.93 1.97 Calc
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.06 0.07 0.07 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.70 0.71 0.73 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.16 0.17 0.17 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 1.78 1.84 1.90 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.33 18.83 19.34 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

BaseCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.57 24.80 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 38.86 40.09 41.36 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.73 0.76 0.78 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 8.02 8.27 8.54 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.51 0.52 0.52 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.62 5.64 5.67 Calc
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.05 0.05 0.05 Leidos Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.16 0.17 0.17 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 1.78 1.84 1.90 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.02 0.02 0.02 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.25 0.25 0.25 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.30 16.65 17.00 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

BaseCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 10.29 10.77 11.27 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.2% 4.6% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 5.81 6.08 6.37 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 10.30 10.53 10.77 BELCO Inflation(3%)
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 3.88 3.96 4.05 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 2.24 2.29 2.35 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Freight $/mmBtu 4.58 4.68 4.79 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.29 1.35 1.42 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 28.22 29.02 29.85 Calc

BaseCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 10.29 10.77 11.27 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.2% 4.6% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 5.81 6.08 6.37 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.87 0.91 0.95 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.29 1.35 1.42 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 13,136 13,136 13,136 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 1.92 1.92 1.92 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 19.59 20.17 20.78 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

BaseCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 10.29 10.77 11.27 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.2% 4.6% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 5.81 6.08 6.37 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.87 0.91 0.95 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.29 1.35 1.42 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000)
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000)
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 9,790 9,790 9,790 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 419,429 419,429 419,429 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 41% 41% 41% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 2.83 2.83 2.83 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 20.49 21.07 21.69 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
HIGH CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
HIGHCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 29.05 29.98 30.74 31.34 31.87 32.64 33.39 34.08 35.06 35.98 36.89 37.84 38.76 39.67 40.58 41.48 42.40 43.64
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.07 18.33 18.34 18.61 18.86 19.25 19.65 20.09 20.54 20.99 21.49 21.97 22.53 23.08 23.66 24.23 24.81 25.42
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 31.05 32.77 34.35 35.82 37.24 38.99 40.79 42.57 44.78 47.00 49.26 51.67 54.12 56.63 59.24 61.91 64.70 68.10
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 11.7% 5.5% 4.8% 4.3% 4.0% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4% 5.2% 5.0% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 5.2%
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal 1.25 1.39 1.38
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 20.7% 10.9% 0.2%
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 52.59 58.31 58.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 92.36 102.40 102.16 106.51 110.74 115.95 121.30 126.59 133.16 139.75 146.50 153.64 160.94 168.39 176.17 184.10 192.41 202.51
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 15.58 17.28 17.24 17.97 18.68 19.56 20.46 21.36 22.47 23.58 24.72 25.92 27.15 28.41 29.72 31.06 32.46 34.17
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Throughput $/mmBtu 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33
Freight&Supply $/bbl 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.22 5.34 5.46 5.59 5.71 5.84 5.97 6.11 6.24 6.38 6.53 6.67 6.82 6.98 7.13
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.20
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 22.75 24.48 24.48 25.26 26.01 26.93 27.88 28.82 29.97 31.13 32.32 33.57 34.85 36.16 37.52 38.91 40.37 42.13

HIGHCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.75 19.86 20.33 20.82 21.23 21.82 22.57 23.17 23.95 24.63 25.25 26.16 26.94 27.73 28.46 30.78 31.70 32.56
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 10.88 10.46 10.51 10.77 11.02 11.36 11.71 12.07 12.44 12.82 13.22 13.63 14.04 14.47 14.92 15.41 15.89 16.34
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 20.05 21.71 22.72 23.80 24.81 26.07 27.57 28.95 30.60 32.17 33.72 35.72 37.62 39.59 41.54 45.94 48.38 50.81
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 14.2% 8.3% 4.7% 4.7% 4.2% 5.1% 5.8% 5.0% 5.7% 5.1% 4.8% 5.9% 5.3% 5.2% 4.9% 10.6% 5.3% 5.0%
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 28.72 34.43 38.80
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 29.5% 19.9% 12.7%
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 66.89 80.21 90.38 94.65 98.66 103.68 109.67 115.13 121.68 127.94 134.13 142.08 149.62 157.46 165.23 182.73 192.42 202.09
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 10.64 12.76 14.38 15.05 15.69 16.49 17.44 18.31 19.36 20.35 21.33 22.60 23.80 25.04 26.28 29.07 30.61 32.14
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.55 1.58
Freight&Supply $/bbl 8.35 8.54 8.73 8.93 9.13 9.33 9.54 9.76 9.98 10.20 10.43 10.67 10.91 11.15 11.40 11.66 11.92 12.19
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.52 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.85 1.90 1.94
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.17 20.35 22.02 22.76 23.45 24.31 25.32 26.25 27.36 28.42 29.47 30.80 32.07 33.39 34.70 37.56 39.17 40.79

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

HIGHCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 23.04 23.76 24.35 24.90 25.67 26.59 26.89 27.19 27.31 27.47 27.63 27.74 27.86 28.08 28.32 28.61 28.79 28.92
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 24.63 25.97 27.21 28.45 29.99 31.76 32.85 33.96 34.88 35.88 36.90 37.88 38.90 40.08 41.34 42.71 43.94 45.13
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.6% 5.5% 4.8% 4.5% 5.4% 5.9% 3.4% 3.4% 2.7% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 2.9% 2.7%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 5.60 5.64 5.62 5.87 6.19 6.55 6.78 7.01 7.20 7.40 7.61 7.82 8.03 8.27 8.53 8.81 9.07 9.31
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.58 4.68 4.78 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.23 5.35 5.47 5.59 5.72
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.51 1.54 1.58 1.61 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.31 1.38 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.07
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 13.15 13.50 13.93 14.42 14.84 15.26 15.65 16.05 16.46 16.87 17.29 17.75 18.24 18.76 19.24 19.72

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

HIGHCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162017)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 23.04 23.76 24.35 24.90 25.67 26.59 26.89 27.19 27.31 27.47 27.63 27.74 27.86 28.08 28.32 28.61 28.79 28.92
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 24.63 25.97 27.21 28.45 29.99 31.76 32.85 33.96 34.88 35.88 36.90 37.88 38.90 40.08 41.34 42.71 43.94 45.13
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.6% 5.5% 4.8% 4.5% 5.4% 5.9% 3.4% 3.4% 2.7% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 2.9% 2.7%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 5.60 5.64 5.62 5.87 6.19 6.55 6.78 7.01 7.20 7.40 7.61 7.82 8.03 8.27 8.53 8.81 9.07 9.31
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.16 5.18 5.20 5.21 5.23 5.35 5.37 5.39 5.41 5.43 5.45 5.48 5.50 5.52 5.55 5.57 5.59
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.31 1.38 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.07
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 15,000
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2018
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0.00 0.00 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 12.78 13.11 13.53 14.00 14.40 14.71 14.97 15.25 15.54 15.82 16.10 16.44 16.79 17.16 17.51 17.84

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

HIGHCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.35 3.63 3.94 4.22 4.61 5.05 5.41 6.02 6.39 6.70 7.06 7.20 7.28 7.59 7.89 8.30 8.51 8.51
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.58 3.96 4.40 4.82 5.38 6.03 6.61 7.52 8.17 8.75 9.42 9.83 10.16 10.83 11.52 12.39 12.99 13.28
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 0.7% 10.7% 11.0% 9.5% 11.8% 12.0% 9.5% 13.9% 8.5% 7.2% 7.7% 4.4% 3.3% 6.6% 6.4% 7.5% 4.9% 2.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.18 2.63 2.67 2.72 3.04 3.41 3.73 4.25 4.61 4.94 5.32 5.55 5.74 6.12 6.51 7.00 7.34 7.50
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 6.90 7.06 7.22 7.38 7.54 7.71 7.89 8.07 8.25 8.43 8.62 8.82 9.01 9.22 9.42 9.64 9.85 10.07
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 2.60 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.84 2.90 2.97 3.03 3.10 3.17 3.24 3.32 3.39 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.71 3.79
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.92 1.96 2.01 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.19
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 18.09 18.48 19.21 20.00 20.75 21.75 22.56 23.34 24.20 24.88 25.51 26.38 27.28 28.31 29.17 29.82

HIGHCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.35 3.63 3.94 4.22 4.61 5.05 5.41 6.02 6.39 6.70 7.06 7.20 7.28 7.59 7.89 8.30 8.51 8.51
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.58 3.96 4.40 4.82 5.38 6.03 6.61 7.52 8.17 8.75 9.42 9.83 10.16 10.83 11.52 12.39 12.99 13.28
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 0.7% 10.7% 11.0% 9.5% 11.8% 12.0% 9.5% 13.9% 8.5% 7.2% 7.7% 4.4% 3.3% 6.6% 6.4% 7.5% 4.9% 2.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.18 2.63 2.67 2.72 3.04 3.41 3.73 4.25 4.61 4.94 5.32 5.55 5.74 6.12 6.51 7.00 7.34 7.50
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.55
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 113,771
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.26 13.86 14.43 15.23 15.84 16.42 17.07 17.54 17.95 18.61 19.29 20.08 20.71 21.12

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

HIGHCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.35 3.63 3.94 4.22 4.61 5.05 5.41 6.02 6.39 6.70 7.06 7.20 7.28 7.59 7.89 8.30 8.51 8.51
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.58 3.96 4.40 4.82 5.38 6.03 6.61 7.52 8.17 8.75 9.42 9.83 10.16 10.83 11.52 12.39 12.99 13.28
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 0.7% 10.7% 11.0% 9.5% 11.8% 12.0% 9.5% 13.9% 8.5% 7.2% 7.7% 4.4% 3.3% 6.6% 6.4% 7.5% 4.9% 2.2%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.18 2.63 2.67 2.72 3.04 3.41 3.73 4.25 4.61 4.94 5.32 5.55 5.74 6.12 6.51 7.00 7.34 7.50
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.55
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000) 113,771
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000) (19,180)
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000) (9,800)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) 84,792
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 0 0 0 0 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 0 0 0 0 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 0 0 0 0 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.08 14.69 15.26 16.07 16.69 17.28 17.93 18.40 18.82 19.49 20.17 20.97 21.60 22.02

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor
HIGHCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 44.70 45.44 46.52 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 26.05 26.70 27.35 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 71.32 74.13 77.61 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.7% 3.9% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % Calc
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 EIA
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 0.00 0.00 0.00 EnergyVelocity
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 212.08 220.44 230.78 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162017(fromEV);EIAAEO2018andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 35.78 37.19 38.94 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 8.04 8.23 8.41 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.36 1.39 1.42 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 7.30 7.46 7.63 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.23 1.26 1.29 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 43.80 45.27 47.08 Calc

HIGHCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 33.58 34.37 35.38 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 16.88 17.39 17.92 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 53.57 56.07 59.03 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.4% 4.7% 5.3% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 213.08 223.02 234.76 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162018(fromEV);EIAAEO2019andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 33.89 35.47 37.34 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 10.18 10.41 10.64 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.62 1.66 1.69 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 12.46 12.74 13.03 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.98 2.03 2.07 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 42.62 44.28 46.23 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

HIGHCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 29.06 29.30 29.54 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.57 24.80 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 46.37 47.81 49.29 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.87 0.90 0.93 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 9.57 9.87 10.17 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.53 0.55 0.56 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.84 5.98 6.11 Calc
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.17 0.18 0.18 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.88 1.93 1.97 Calc
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.06 0.07 0.07 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.70 0.71 0.73 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.19 0.20 0.21 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 2.13 2.19 2.26 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 20.22 20.78 21.34 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

HIGHCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162017)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 29.06 29.30 29.54 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.57 24.80 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 46.37 47.81 49.29 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.87 0.90 0.93 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 9.57 9.87 10.17 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.51 0.52 0.52 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.62 5.64 5.67 Calc
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.05 0.05 0.05 Leidos Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.19 0.20 0.21 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 2.13 2.19 2.26 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.02 0.02 0.02 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.25 0.25 0.25 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.19 18.59 19.00 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

HIGHCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 8.68 8.81 9.03 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 13.85 14.37 15.06 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.2% 3.8% 4.8% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 7.82 8.11 8.50 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 10.30 10.53 10.77 BELCO Inflation(3%)
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 3.88 3.96 4.05 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 2.24 2.29 2.35 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Freight $/mmBtu 4.58 4.68 4.79 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.74 1.81 1.89 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 30.67 31.51 32.47 Calc

HIGHCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 8.68 8.81 9.03 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 13.85 14.37 15.06 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.2% 3.8% 4.8% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 7.82 8.11 8.50 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.56 0.57 0.59 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.74 1.81 1.89 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 13,136 13,136 13,136 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 1.92 1.92 1.92 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 21.73 22.32 23.03 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

HIGHCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 8.68 8.81 9.03 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 13.85 14.37 15.06 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.2% 3.8% 4.8% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 7.82 8.11 8.50 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.56 0.57 0.59 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 1.74 1.81 1.89 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000)
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000)
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 9,790 9,790 9,790 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 419,429 419,429 419,429 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 41% 41% 41% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 2.83 2.83 2.83 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 22.63 23.22 23.93 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
LOW CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
LOWCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 13.89 13.99 14.12 14.45 14.81 15.07 15.40 15.63 15.89 16.12 16.36 16.59 16.66 16.78 16.82 16.95 17.00 17.14
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.07 18.33 18.34 18.61 18.86 19.25 19.65 20.09 20.54 20.99 21.49 21.97 22.53 23.08 23.66 24.23 24.81 25.42
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 14.85 15.29 15.79 16.51 17.30 18.01 18.81 19.52 20.29 21.05 21.85 22.65 23.26 23.95 24.56 25.30 25.94 26.75
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.3% 2.9% 3.3% 4.6% 4.8% 4.1% 4.5% 3.8% 3.9% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.5% 3.0% 2.5% 3.1%
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal 1.25 1.39 1.38
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 20.7% 10.9% 0.2%
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 52.59 58.31 58.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 48.24 53.48 53.35 55.80 58.47 60.86 63.59 65.98 68.57 71.14 73.84 76.56 78.61 80.95 83.00 85.51 87.67 90.41
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 8.14 9.02 9.00 9.42 9.87 10.27 10.73 11.13 11.57 12.00 12.46 12.92 13.26 13.66 14.00 14.43 14.79 15.25
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Throughput $/mmBtu 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33
Freight&Supply $/bbl 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.22 5.34 5.46 5.59 5.71 5.84 5.97 6.11 6.24 6.38 6.53 6.67 6.82 6.98 7.13
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.20
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 15.30 16.23 16.25 16.70 17.19 17.64 18.14 18.59 19.07 19.55 20.06 20.56 20.96 21.41 21.80 22.28 22.70 23.22

LOWCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.99 7.09 7.24 7.54 7.85 8.09 8.34 8.53 8.73 8.91 9.08 9.27 9.34 9.43 9.49 9.58 9.62 9.72
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 10.88 10.46 10.51 10.77 11.02 11.36 11.71 12.07 12.44 12.82 13.22 13.63 14.04 14.47 14.92 15.41 15.89 16.34
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 7.47 7.75 8.10 8.61 9.17 9.67 10.19 10.65 11.15 11.63 12.12 12.66 13.05 13.46 13.85 14.29 14.69 15.16
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.0% 3.7% 4.5% 6.4% 6.5% 5.4% 5.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.3% 4.2% 4.4% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3.2% 2.8% 3.2%
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 28.72 34.43 38.80
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 29.5% 19.9% 12.7%
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 24.94 29.91 33.70 35.86 38.18 40.24 42.42 44.34 46.43 48.43 50.47 52.70 54.31 56.04 57.65 59.50 61.14 63.11
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 3.97 4.76 5.36 5.70 6.07 6.40 6.75 7.05 7.39 7.70 8.03 8.38 8.64 8.91 9.17 9.46 9.72 10.04
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.55 1.58
Freight&Supply $/bbl 8.35 8.54 8.73 8.93 9.13 9.33 9.54 9.76 9.98 10.20 10.43 10.67 10.91 11.15 11.40 11.66 11.92 12.19
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.52 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.85 1.90 1.94
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 11.50 12.35 13.01 13.40 13.83 14.22 14.63 14.99 15.39 15.77 16.16 16.59 16.91 17.26 17.59 17.96 18.29 18.68

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

LOWCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 17.41 17.65 17.98 18.74 20.03 20.06 20.14 20.29 20.40 20.52 20.69 20.86 20.88 20.82 20.81 20.86 20.92 20.99
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 18.61 19.30 20.10 21.42 23.41 23.97 24.60 25.35 26.06 26.80 27.63 28.49 29.15 29.72 30.38 31.13 31.93 32.75
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 0.2% 3.7% 4.1% 6.6% 9.3% 2.4% 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.1% 2.3% 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 4.23 4.19 4.15 4.42 4.83 4.95 5.08 5.23 5.38 5.53 5.70 5.88 6.01 6.13 6.27 6.42 6.59 6.76
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.58 4.68 4.78 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.23 5.35 5.47 5.59 5.72
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.51 1.54 1.58 1.61 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.50
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 11.36 11.73 12.27 12.46 12.76 13.09 13.42 13.76 14.12 14.50 14.83 15.14 15.47 15.84 16.21 16.60

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

LOWCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 17.41 17.65 17.98 18.74 20.03 20.06 20.14 20.29 20.40 20.52 20.69 20.86 20.88 20.82 20.81 20.86 20.92 20.99
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 19.16 19.79 20.31 21.66 22.12 22.20 22.29 22.44 22.57 22.70 22.88 23.01 23.14 23.30 23.46 23.68 23.93 24.14
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 18.61 19.30 20.10 21.42 23.41 23.97 24.60 25.35 26.06 26.80 27.63 28.49 29.15 29.72 30.38 31.13 31.93 32.75
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 0.2% 3.7% 4.1% 6.6% 9.3% 2.4% 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.1% 2.3% 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6%
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 4.23 4.19 4.15 4.42 4.83 4.95 5.08 5.23 5.38 5.53 5.70 5.88 6.01 6.13 6.27 6.42 6.59 6.76
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.16 5.18 5.20 5.21 5.23 5.35 5.37 5.39 5.41 5.43 5.45 5.48 5.50 5.52 5.55 5.57 5.59
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Duty $/mmBtu 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.50
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 15,000
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2018
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0.00 0.00 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 10.98 11.34 11.87 12.04 12.32 12.54 12.74 12.96 13.20 13.45 13.64 13.82 14.02 14.24 14.48 14.72

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

LOWCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.25 3.43 3.24 3.16 3.12 3.24 3.26 3.33 3.35 3.41 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.66 3.67 3.73 3.84 3.94
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.47 3.75 3.62 3.61 3.65 3.87 3.98 4.16 4.27 4.45 4.62 4.85 5.13 5.22 5.36 5.57 5.86 6.15
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.7% 8.1% 3.5% 0.3% 1.1% 6.2% 2.7% 4.6% 2.7% 4.1% 3.8% 5.1% 5.7% 1.8% 2.5% 4.0% 5.2% 5.0%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.11 2.48 2.20 2.04 2.06 2.19 2.25 2.35 2.41 2.51 2.61 2.74 2.90 2.95 3.03 3.15 3.31 3.47
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 6.90 7.06 7.22 7.38 7.54 7.71 7.89 8.07 8.25 8.43 8.62 8.82 9.01 9.22 9.42 9.64 9.85 10.07
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 2.60 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.84 2.90 2.97 3.03 3.10 3.17 3.24 3.32 3.39 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.71 3.79
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.92 1.96 2.01 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.19
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 17.51 17.65 18.01 18.51 18.94 19.43 19.88 20.38 20.88 21.44 22.03 22.51 23.03 23.61 24.25 24.90

LOWCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.25 3.43 3.24 3.16 3.12 3.24 3.26 3.33 3.35 3.41 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.66 3.67 3.73 3.84 3.94
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.47 3.75 3.62 3.61 3.65 3.87 3.98 4.16 4.27 4.45 4.62 4.85 5.13 5.22 5.36 5.57 5.86 6.15
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.7% 8.1% 3.5% 0.3% 1.1% 6.2% 2.7% 4.6% 2.7% 4.1% 3.8% 5.1% 5.7% 1.8% 2.5% 4.0% 5.2% 5.0%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.11 2.48 2.20 2.04 2.06 2.19 2.25 2.35 2.41 2.51 2.61 2.74 2.90 2.95 3.03 3.15 3.31 3.47
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.51
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 113,771
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.03 12.34 12.58 12.87 13.12 13.42 13.72 14.06 14.44 14.70 14.99 15.34 15.75 16.16

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

LOWCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.25 3.43 3.24 3.16 3.12 3.24 3.26 3.33 3.35 3.41 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.66 3.67 3.73 3.84 3.94
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.70 3.80 4.21 4.55 4.88 5.02 5.09 5.25 5.35 5.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.71 5.69 5.91 6.09 6.27
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 3.47 3.75 3.62 3.61 3.65 3.87 3.98 4.16 4.27 4.45 4.62 4.85 5.13 5.22 5.36 5.57 5.86 6.15
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.7% 8.1% 3.5% 0.3% 1.1% 6.2% 2.7% 4.6% 2.7% 4.1% 3.8% 5.1% 5.7% 1.8% 2.5% 4.0% 5.2% 5.0%
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.11 2.48 2.20 2.04 2.06 2.19 2.25 2.35 2.41 2.51 2.61 2.74 2.90 2.95 3.03 3.15 3.31 3.47
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.51
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000) 113,771
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000) (19,180)
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000) (9,800)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) 84,792
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2020
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790 9,790
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 0 0 0 0 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 0 0 0 0 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 0 0 0 0 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.85 13.17 13.41 13.71 13.97 14.27 14.58 14.93 15.31 15.58 15.87 16.23 16.64 17.06

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor
LOWCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 17.21 17.30 17.43 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 26.05 26.05 26.05 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 27.46 28.23 29.08 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.6% 2.8% 3.0% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % Calc
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 EIA
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 0.00 0.00 0.00 EnergyVelocity
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 92.81 95.39 98.28 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162017(fromEV);EIAAEO2018andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 15.66 16.09 16.58 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 8.04 8.23 8.41 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.36 1.39 1.42 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 7.30 7.46 7.63 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.23 1.26 1.29 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 23.68 24.17 24.72 Calc

LOWCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 9.68 9.69 9.86 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 16.88 16.88 16.88 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 15.45 15.81 16.46 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 1.9% 2.3% 4.1% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 64.31 65.80 68.50 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162018(fromEV);EIAAEO2019andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 10.23 10.47 10.89 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 10.18 10.41 10.64 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.62 1.66 1.69 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 12.46 12.74 13.03 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.98 2.03 2.07 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 6.29 6.29 6.29 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.95 19.27 19.78 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

LOWCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 21.05 21.12 21.19 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.36 24.36 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 33.59 34.45 35.34 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.63 0.65 0.67 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 6.93 7.11 7.29 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.53 0.55 0.56 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.84 5.98 6.11 Calc
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.17 0.18 0.18 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.88 1.93 1.97 Calc
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.06 0.07 0.07 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.70 0.71 0.73 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.14 0.14 0.15 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 1.54 1.58 1.62 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 17.00 17.41 17.83 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

LOWCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 21.05 21.12 21.19 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 24.36 24.36 24.36 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 33.59 34.45 35.34 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Calc EIAAEO
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.63 0.65 0.67 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 6.93 7.11 7.29 Calc
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.51 0.52 0.52 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.62 5.64 5.67 Calc
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.05 0.05 0.05 Leidos Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.14 0.14 0.15 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Duty $/mmBtu 1.54 1.58 1.62 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.02 0.02 0.02 Calc
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.25 0.25 0.25 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 14.97 15.22 15.49 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

LOWCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 4.06 4.16 4.21 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 6.48 6.78 7.03 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.3% 4.6% 3.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 3.66 3.83 3.97 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 10.30 10.53 10.77 BELCO Inflation(3%)
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 3.88 3.96 4.05 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 2.24 2.29 2.35 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Freight $/mmBtu 4.58 4.68 4.79 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 0.81 0.85 0.88 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 25.59 26.27 26.92 Calc

LOWCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 4.06 4.16 4.21 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 6.48 6.78 7.03 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.3% 4.6% 3.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 3.66 3.83 3.97 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 0.81 0.85 0.88 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 13,136 13,136 13,136 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 1.92 1.92 1.92 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.60 17.04 17.44 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)

Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor

LOWCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 4.06 4.16 4.21 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 6.45 6.60 6.76 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 6.48 6.78 7.03 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 5.3% 4.6% 3.7% Calc EIAAEO
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 3.66 3.83 3.97 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/mmBtu 0.81 0.85 0.88 Calc
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000)
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000)
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 9,790 9,790 9,790 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 419,429 419,429 419,429 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 41% 41% 41% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 2.83 2.83 2.83 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 17.51 17.94 18.34 Calc

FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix D
DETAILED LEVELIZED COST OF EENERGY AND
SCENARIO RESULTS
Appendix D1
LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY

Appendix D1

SummaryofLCOEAnalysis
CHP/CCHP(C.F.60%100%) 152 268

DistributedSolarThermal 396 396

DistributedPVResidential(C.F.15%20%) 307 409

DistributedPVCommercial(C.F.15%20%) 377 503

Biomass(C.F.60%100%) 323 388

Wind(C.F.30%35%) 269 314

UtilityScalePV(C.F.15%25%) 256 432

RICEHFO(C.F.60%100%) 202 218

RICEDF(C.F.60%100%) 178 197

RICENG(C.F.60%100%) 155 188

CCLFO(C.F.60%100%) 218 239

CCNG(C.F.60%100%) 174 196

CCLPG(C.F.60%100%) 153 174

CTLFO(C.F.15%30%) 300 354

CTNG(C.F.15%30%) 208 297

CTLPG(C.F.15%30%) 186 297

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600


$/MWh

Page 1 of 2
Appendix D1

SummaryofLCOEAnalysis(withoutDutiesandTaxes)
CHP/CCHP(C.F.60%100%) 142 257

DistributedSolarThermal 396 396

DistributedPVResidential(C.F.15%20%) 307 409

DistributedPVCommercial(C.F.15%20%) 377 503

Biomass(C.F.60%100%) 323 388

Wind(C.F.30%35%) 269 314

UtilityScalePV(C.F.15%25%) 256 432

RICEHFO(C.F.60%100%) 160 176

RICEDF(C.F.60%100%) 169 188

RICENG(C.F.60%100%) 147 179

CCLFO(C.F.60%100%) 173 194

CCNG(C.F.60%100%) 165 186

CCLPG(C.F.60%100%) 140 161

CTLFO(C.F.15%30%) 239 293

CTNG(C.F.15%30%) 196 285

CTLPG(C.F.15%30%) 169 280

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600


$/MWh

Page 2 of 2
Appendix D2
CASE UNIT MATRIX

BELCO2016IRP Appendix D2
CaseUnitMatrix

UnitMatrix
Case5
BusinessAsUsual Case6
Case1 Case2 Case4 (FuelOil) PracticalLPGwith Case7 Case8
BusinessAsUsual EnergyPolicy Case3 PracticalLNGwith withRenewablesand OptimizedRenewables PartialLNGwith PartialLPGwith
Option Fuel Unit (FuelOil) AspirationalMix PreliminaryLeastCost RenewablesandDSM DSM andDSM RenewablesandDSM RenewablesandDSM
ExistE1 OilH(HFO) E1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE2 OilH(HFO) E2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE3 OilH(HFO) E3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE4 OilH(HFO) E4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE5 OilH(HFO) E5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE6 OilH(HFO) E6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE7 OilH(HFO) E7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE8 OilH(HFO) E8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD3 OilL(LFO) D3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ExistD8 OilL(LFO) D8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ExistD10 OilL(LFO) D10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ExistD14 OilL(LFO) D14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD15 OilL(LFO) D15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT6 OilL(LFO) GT6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT7 OilL(LFO) GT7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT8 OilL(LFO) GT8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT4 OilL(LFO) GT4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT5 OilL(LFO) GT5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT3E OilL(LFO) GT3E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT3F OilL(LFO) GT3F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistTB Waste 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS1a OilH(HFO) ICMSDNew1unit 1 1
PS1b OilH(HFO) ICMSDNew1unit 1 1
PS1c NG ICMSDNew1unit 1 1 1
PS2a OilL(LFO) GTNew 1 1
PS2c LPGBulkDelivered GTNew 1 1 1
PS2d NG GTNew 1 1 1
PS3a OilL(LFO) CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1
PS3b LPGBulk CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS3d LPGBulkDelivered CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS3e NG CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS12 NG ICRecipNew4units 1 1 1
PS4a SOL SLUtility5MWac
PS4c SOL SLUtility20MWac 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS4d SOL SLUtility5MWac(PPA) 1 1 1 1 1
PS5 WND WT 1
PS6a OTH BYSpinResBackup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS6b OTH BYRenewSupport 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS7aa NG E5ICMSDRefuel 1 1

PS7ab NG E6ICMSDRefuel 1 1

PS7ac NG E7ICMSDRefuel 1 1

PS7ad NG E8ICMSDRefuel 1 1

PS7ba LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT5GTRefuel

PS7bb LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT6GTRefuel

PS7bc LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT7GTRefuel

PS7bd LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT8GTRefuel

PS7ca LPGBulkDelivered GT5GTRefuel 1

PS7cb LPGBulkDelivered GT6GTRefuel 1

PS7cc LPGBulkDelivered GT7GTRefuel 1

PS7cd LPGBulkDelivered GT8GTRefuel 1

PS7da NG GT5GTRefuel 1 1

PS7db NG GT6GTRefuel 1 1

PS7dc NG GT7GTRefuel 1 1

PS7dd NG GT8GTRefuel 1 1
DSM1a SLDistElec SLDistElecRes
DSM1b SLDistElec SLDistElecCom 1
DSM2b LPGBulk ICCCHP 1
DSM2d LNGBulk ICCHP 1
DSM3a SLDistH2O SLDistH2O 1
EnergyEfficiencyand
DSMEE/EC(0.5%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
EnergyConservation
EnergyEfficiencyand
DSMEE/EC(1.0%)
EnergyConservation

Notes:
1 Cellshighlightedinyellowreflectanoption"forcedin"totheresourcestack.
2 CasesincludingthePS7options(the"RefuelingOptions"):Theexistingunitsbeingconverted,orrefueled,aretoretirethedaybeforetheconversiontakesplace.
3 Case2willbedesignedtomeettheAspirationalMixrequirementsasdefinedinthetablebelow.TheFutureRenewableenergy(Undefined)resourcewillbemodeled
equivalentincosttoanaturalgasoption.

P:\ESO\1790ORL\005759BermudaElectric\2016IRP\DA\PROMOD\Assumptions\
PROMODAssumptions_20160601 Leidos ,6/3/2016

Appendix D3
CASE 1 RESULTS

AppendixD3 Case1Results

BELCO - Annual Power Supply Costs by Component


250,000 Case 1

200,000

150,000
$000

100,000

50,000

-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Debt Service - Generation Debt Service - T & D
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure
Fuel - Existing Fuel - New

800 BELCO - Annual Energy Supply by Component


Case 1
700
600
500
GWh

400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

HFO LFO Tynes Bay - WTE System Load (net of DSM)

BELCOPromodCase1 Page1of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

240 BELCO - Annual Capacity Supply by Component


220 Case 1
200
180
160
140
MW

120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Existing Thermal New Thermal Existing WTE
New Renewables Peak (net of DSM) Reserves

120 BELCO - Annual Supply Side Capacity Additions


Case 1
100

80
(MW)

60

40

20

0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Recip. MSD GT CC (1x1)
Utility Solar Wind Generic Renewable
Battery Refuel: E5 - E8 Recip. MSD Refuel: GT5 - GT8

BELCOPromodCase1 Page2of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS

Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
AMORTIZED CAPITAL COSTS
Debt Service - Generation $000 11,248 - 5,130 7,753 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 14,058 14,058 14,058 14,058 14,058 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Early Retirement Depreciation Cost $000 68 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 44,099 82,964 64,943 45,122 32,896 35,384 36,531 38,277 39,702 41,500 36,584 37,989 39,599 41,445 43,801 23,246 23,965 25,281 26,277 27,430 28,367
Fuel - New $000 63,237 - 20,673 42,308 57,476 59,327 61,865 63,536 66,102 68,238 76,560 79,721 82,297 86,143 87,983 120,040 125,368 130,212 136,078 140,503 144,409
Variable O&M - Existing $000 3,659 7,391 5,765 3,921 2,754 2,809 2,864 2,974 3,040 3,148 3,047 3,110 3,224 3,282 3,465 1,774 1,808 1,872 1,911 1,962 2,059
Variable O&M - New $000 4,943 - 1,957 3,968 5,204 5,286 5,417 5,536 5,669 5,791 5,989 6,154 6,300 6,434 6,594 7,678 7,863 8,044 8,232 8,606 8,983
Fixed O&M - Existing $000 1,868 3,027 2,628 2,102 1,741 1,685 1,723 1,761 1,801 1,842 1,532 1,567 1,602 1,638 1,675 952 974 995 1,018 1,041 1,064
Fixed O&M - New $000 1,533 - 411 838 1,453 1,486 1,519 1,554 1,588 1,624 2,017 2,062 2,108 2,156 2,204 2,998 3,065 3,134 3,205 3,277 3,351
Renewable $000 5,954 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL COSTS $000 144,708 125,790 121,653 126,882 133,712 137,690 127,363 131,348 135,915 140,425 146,252 151,449 156,343 162,640 167,638 184,923 191,725 198,621 206,257 212,834 218,787
$/MWh 213.6 189.2 182.7 190.0 199.6 204.9 189.0 194.3 200.5 206.5 214.4 221.4 227.8 236.3 242.8 267.1 276.1 285.1 295.2 303.7 311.3

BELCOPromodCase1 Page3of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

ANNUAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS


Nominal Dollars ($000)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 24,693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 24,693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - 25,249 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - 25,817 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36,256 - - - - -
PS-2a_1 - - - 16,282 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 18,608 - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,797 - - - - -
Battery
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Distributed Solar Water Heating - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Energy Efficiency - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 28,055 64,972 41,339 57,132 14,523 - - - - 18,608 - - - - 57,054 - - - - -

BELCOPromodCase1 Page4of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

SYSTEM GENERATION SUMMARY

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 578 595 622 614 609 609 612 612 615 623 624 628 625 634 586 586 588 588 599 614
LFO GWH 63 47 23 32 39 41 40 42 42 36 37 34 40 32 83 84 85 87 78 65
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703

GENERATION MIX (% OF TOTAL)


HFO % 87% 89% 93% 92% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 91% 92% 91% 92% 85% 84% 84% 84% 86% 87%
LFO % 10% 7% 3% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 9%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BELCOPromodCase1 Page5of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUMMARY

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
ENERGY
Existing Thermal GWH 641 478 319 222 225 225 228 228 231 210 210 212 212 218 110 110 111 111 111 113
New Thermal GWH - 164 325 424 423 426 424 426 425 449 451 450 453 449 559 561 562 564 566 566
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
New Renewables GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL ENERGY 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
System Load GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
LOLH HOURS 22 - - - 1 3 - - - 5 - 1 - 10 - 4 2 12 - -
Dump Energy GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emergency Energy GWH 0.2 - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.1 - -

FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 757 768 796 781 776 776 779 780 783 792 794 799 795 807 743 744 745 745 760 779
LFO BBL (000) 113 82 48 67 85 90 88 92 91 78 80 75 87 71 177 180 182 186 167 138
LNG GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EMISSIONS / RPS
Energy from Renewables % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
CO2 TONS (000) 466 457 457 458 463 465 466 468 470 469 471 471 475 474 488 490 491 493 492 489
CO2 Intensity LBS/MWH 1,400 1,373 1,369 1,367 1,379 1,381 1,380 1,382 1,382 1,375 1,376 1,373 1,379 1,372 1,409 1,410 1,411 1,412 1,405 1,392
NOX TONS (000) 26 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 22 23 23 23 23 22
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CAPACITY
Existing Thermal MW 152 129 108 88 84 84 84 84 84 71 71 71 71 71 42 42 42 42 42 42
New Thermal MW - 28 42 70 70 70 70 70 70 85 85 85 85 85 113 113 113 113 113 113
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
New Renewables MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 161 154 163 159 159 159 159 159 160 160 160 160 160 159 159 159 159 159 159
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peak (net of DSM) MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7
Total Capacity Requirements MW 148 148 149 149 150 150 150 151 151 151 152 152 152 153 153 153 154 154 154 155
Surplus/(Deficiency) MW 8.6 12.9 5.5 13.9 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.1 7.7 8.7 8.3 8.0 7.7 7.3 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.3

BELCOPromodCase1 Page6of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Unit Fuel
PS-1a_1 - 10,342 14,380 14,633 15,055 15,520 16,008 16,736 17,164 17,822 18,419 19,138 19,844 20,603 21,373 22,243 23,014 24,001 24,931 26,231
PS-1a_2 - 10,332 13,864 13,581 13,918 14,456 14,845 15,557 16,075 16,761 17,313 18,036 18,526 19,415 19,852 20,725 21,580 22,415 24,518 26,117
PS-1a_3 - - 14,064 14,122 14,591 14,996 15,479 15,976 16,500 17,261 18,264 18,687 19,667 20,203 20,948 21,895 22,657 23,517 24,818 25,945
PS-1a_4 - - - 13,579 13,801 14,428 15,011 15,295 15,956 16,948 17,652 18,415 18,915 19,831 20,181 21,210 21,799 22,627 23,350 24,124
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,717 12,892 13,665 14,396 16,087 18,181
PS-2a_1 - - - 1,562 1,962 2,465 2,194 2,538 2,542 2,448 3,223 2,382 3,674 2,562 5,821 7,031 6,622 6,778 4,603 3,174
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 5,320 4,851 5,639 5,517 5,369 6,781 6,962 7,744 7,435 6,535 6,447
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,367 12,411 13,131 14,908 15,660 14,190

New Thermal Unit Variable O&M


PS-1a_1 - 979 1,350 1,364 1,390 1,418 1,446 1,495 1,515 1,553 1,583 1,625 1,661 1,699 1,734 1,776 1,810 1,856 1,895 1,962
PS-1a_2 - 978 1,300 1,263 1,281 1,317 1,338 1,386 1,415 1,458 1,485 1,528 1,546 1,597 1,606 1,650 1,693 1,729 1,863 1,953
PS-1a_3 - - 1,319 1,315 1,346 1,368 1,398 1,425 1,456 1,504 1,570 1,586 1,646 1,665 1,699 1,747 1,782 1,818 1,887 1,940
PS-1a_4 - - - 1,263 1,270 1,314 1,354 1,362 1,405 1,474 1,516 1,562 1,580 1,633 1,635 1,690 1,712 1,746 1,771 1,799
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,003 1,001 1,046 1,084 1,190 1,328
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BELCOPromodCase1 Page7of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Units Fixed O&M
PS-1a_1 - 205 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_2 - 205 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_3 - - 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_4 - - - 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-2a_1 - - - 311 318 326 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 398 407 416 425 435 444

New Thermal Units Debt Service


PS-1a_1 - 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565
PS-1a_2 - 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565
PS-1a_3 - - 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623
PS-1a_4 - - - 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766
PS-2a_1 - - - 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160

BELCOPromodCase1 Page8of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Existing Thermal Fuel
D10 2,046 1,688 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,303 1,050 667 984 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,774 1,496 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 1,844 1,583 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,991 2,092 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,775 2,212 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,267 4,138 3,079 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,051 4,171 3,510 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 10,186 8,750 6,171 5,794 5,899 6,197 6,503 6,523 7,043 7,136 7,359 7,686 8,102 8,854 - - - - - -
E6 11,506 10,342 6,515 4,446 4,857 4,849 5,130 5,482 5,702 6,094 6,255 6,683 6,743 7,509 - - - - - -
E7 12,338 12,794 11,187 9,075 9,071 9,415 9,892 10,178 10,682 11,243 11,381 12,290 12,360 13,464 10,436 10,791 11,472 11,811 12,519 14,162
E8 12,182 12,007 9,539 7,857 8,011 8,163 8,529 8,818 9,125 9,749 10,298 10,567 10,916 11,387 10,404 10,865 11,204 11,722 12,104 12,628
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,420 1,371 2,381 3,422 5,063 4,780 5,392 5,621 6,007 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 699 444 723 391 747 861 779 1,009 851 818 828 790 924 893 863 830 880 823 778 355
GT7 909 435 746 470 920 1,149 1,094 1,070 1,065 854 1,044 846 1,269 936 807 830 907 1,002 983 634
GT8 673 370 603 457 816 1,116 957 1,003 1,026 690 823 737 1,132 757 734 650 819 920 1,046 588

Existing Thermal Variable O&M


D10 157 132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 94 78 49 72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 125 107 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 143 125 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 634 158 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 611 165 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 397 368 273 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 474 370 308 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 991 807 559 521 526 546 568 563 600 600 611 630 655 705 - - - - - -
E6 1,130 967 597 402 434 429 449 474 487 515 522 550 547 600 - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,235 1,068 855 846 868 903 919 953 991 989 1,056 1,046 1,124 846 860 902 912 949 1,058
E8 1,236 1,165 915 744 751 757 783 800 818 864 901 912 929 955 854 878 892 917 931 955
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 79 46 79 114 167 157 176 181 192 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 24 15 25 13 26 29 26 34 28 27 27 25 29 28 27 25 27 24 23 10
GT7 31 15 26 16 31 39 37 36 35 28 34 27 40 29 25 25 27 30 29 18
GT8 23 13 21 16 28 38 32 34 34 23 27 24 36 24 23 20 25 27 31 17

BELCOPromodCase1 Page9of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Existing Thermal Fixed O&M
D10 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

Early Retirement Depreciation Costs


D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BELCOPromodCase1 Page10of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570

Renewable Units Debt Service

T&D Upgrade Debt Service


T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BELCOPromodCase1 Page11of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

CAPACITY FACTOR (%)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 79.6 90.3 89.0 88.9 88.7 88.5 89.2 88.7 88.9 88.6 88.7 88.9 88.9 88.8 88.7 88.7 88.9 88.8 89.6
PS-1a_2 - 79.5 86.9 82.3 81.9 82.4 81.9 82.7 82.8 83.4 83.1 83.4 82.8 83.6 82.2 82.4 82.9 82.8 87.3 89.2
PS-1a_3 - - 88.2 85.8 86.1 85.6 85.5 85.0 85.2 86.0 87.8 86.5 88.1 87.1 87.0 87.2 87.2 87.0 88.4 88.6
PS-1a_4 - - - 82.4 81.2 82.2 82.8 81.3 82.2 84.4 84.8 85.2 84.6 85.5 83.7 84.4 83.8 83.6 82.9 82.2
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.1 52.6 53.9 54.6 58.7 63.9
PS-2a_1 - - - 5.4 6.6 8.0 6.9 7.8 7.6 7.1 9.0 6.4 9.6 6.5 14.1 16.5 15.0 14.9 9.7 6.4
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 15.3 13.5 15.2 14.4 13.5 16.5 16.3 17.6 16.3 13.8 13.1
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.1 29.1 29.8 32.6 33.1 28.8
D10 21.3 17.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 19.9 16.0 9.9 14.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 16.9 14.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 19.3 16.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.3 43.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 61.2 49.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 37.4 33.9 24.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 47.4 36.2 29.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 65.8 52.5 35.6 32.3 32.0 32.5 33.0 31.9 33.4 32.7 32.5 32.7 33.3 35.1 - - - - - -
E6 75.1 62.9 37.9 24.9 26.4 25.5 26.1 26.9 27.1 28.0 27.7 28.5 27.8 29.8 - - - - - -
E7 82.7 80.3 67.9 53.0 51.4 51.6 52.5 52.1 53.0 53.9 52.7 54.8 53.2 56.0 41.2 40.8 42.0 41.6 42.3 45.9
E8 82.1 75.7 58.1 46.1 45.6 45.0 45.5 45.3 45.5 47.0 47.9 47.3 47.2 47.5 41.6 41.6 41.5 41.7 41.4 41.5
GT5 9.7 5.5 9.3 13.0 18.8 17.2 18.9 19.0 19.8 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 7.1 4.5 7.2 3.8 7.0 7.9 6.9 8.6 7.1 6.6 6.5 5.9 6.7 6.3 5.9 5.4 5.6 5.0 4.6 2.0
GT7 9.2 4.4 7.4 4.5 8.6 10.5 9.7 9.2 8.9 6.9 8.1 6.4 9.2 6.6 5.5 5.4 5.8 6.1 5.8 3.6
GT8 6.8 3.8 6.0 4.4 7.7 10.2 8.5 8.6 8.5 5.6 6.4 5.5 8.3 5.3 5.0 4.3 5.2 5.6 6.2 3.3

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page12of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

GENERATION (GWH)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 81.9 110.7 109.4 109.0 108.8 108.6 109.7 108.7 109.0 108.7 109.1 109.0 109.1 108.9 109.0 108.7 109.0 108.9 110.2
PS-1a_2 - 81.8 106.6 101.3 100.5 101.0 100.4 101.7 101.6 102.3 102.0 102.6 101.5 102.6 100.9 101.3 101.7 101.5 107.0 109.7
PS-1a_3 - - 108.2 105.5 105.5 104.9 104.8 104.6 104.4 105.5 107.7 106.4 108.0 106.9 106.7 107.3 107.0 106.7 108.4 109.0
PS-1a_4 - - - 101.3 99.6 100.8 101.6 100.0 100.8 103.5 104.0 104.8 103.8 104.8 102.7 103.8 102.8 102.5 101.7 101.1
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63.0 61.5 62.8 63.6 68.4 74.7
PS-2a_1 - - - 6.8 8.3 10.1 8.8 9.8 9.5 8.9 11.3 8.1 12.1 8.1 17.8 20.9 19.0 18.8 12.3 8.1
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 19.3 17.1 19.2 18.2 17.1 20.8 20.6 22.2 20.5 17.4 16.6
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.0 36.8 37.6 41.2 41.7 36.4
D10 13.0 10.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 7.8 6.3 3.9 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 10.4 8.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 11.9 10.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.3 15.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 60.0 16.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 33.1 30.0 21.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 39.5 30.1 24.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 82.5 65.7 44.6 40.6 40.1 40.7 41.3 40.1 41.8 40.9 40.7 41.1 41.7 44.0 - - - - - -
E6 94.1 78.7 47.5 31.3 33.0 31.9 32.7 33.8 33.9 35.0 34.7 35.8 34.8 37.4 - - - - - -
E7 103.6 100.6 85.1 66.6 64.4 64.7 65.8 65.4 66.4 67.6 66.0 68.8 66.7 70.1 51.6 51.3 52.6 52.1 53.0 57.7
E8 102.8 94.8 72.8 57.9 57.2 56.3 57.0 56.9 57.0 58.8 60.0 59.4 59.2 59.5 52.1 52.3 52.0 52.3 51.9 52.1
GT5 11.1 6.3 10.6 14.9 21.4 19.6 21.5 21.7 22.5 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.8 1.8 2.8 1.5 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.8
GT7 3.6 1.7 2.9 1.8 3.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.5 2.7 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.4
GT8 2.7 1.5 2.4 1.7 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.3

Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page13of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

CAPACITY (MW)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_2 - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_3 - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_4 - - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-2a_1 - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7

BELCOPromodCase1 Page14of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

FUEL CONSUMPTION (GBTU)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 647 875 865 862 860 858 867 860 862 859 862 862 862 861 862 860 862 861 871
PS-1a_2 - 646 843 803 797 801 796 806 805 811 808 813 805 813 800 803 806 805 847 867
PS-1a_3 - - 855 835 835 831 830 828 827 835 852 842 854 845 844 848 846 844 857 862
PS-1a_4 - - - 803 790 799 805 793 799 820 824 830 822 830 813 822 814 812 806 801
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 512 500 511 517 556 604
PS-2a_1 - - - 83 101 123 107 120 116 108 138 99 147 99 217 254 231 228 149 99
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 235 208 234 221 208 253 251 270 250 212 202
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 462 448 458 501 508 444
D10 114 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 73 58 36 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 99 83 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 103 88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 533 131 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 519 138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 285 259 187 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 337 261 213 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 680 547 375 343 338 343 349 338 353 345 344 346 352 371 - - - - - -
E6 768 647 396 263 278 269 275 284 286 295 292 301 293 314 - - - - - -
E7 823 800 680 536 519 522 530 528 535 544 531 554 537 563 420 418 429 424 432 470
E8 813 751 580 464 459 452 457 457 457 471 481 476 474 477 419 421 419 421 418 419
GT5 135 76 129 182 261 239 262 265 275 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 39 25 39 21 38 43 38 48 39 36 35 33 37 35 32 30 31 28 25 11
GT7 51 24 41 25 47 58 53 50 49 38 45 35 51 36 30 30 32 34 32 20
GT8 37 21 33 24 42 56 47 47 47 31 35 31 45 29 27 23 29 31 34 18

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page15of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

AVERAGE HEAT RATE (MMBTU/MWH)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.90
PS-1a_2 - 7.90 7.91 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.93 7.92 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.91 7.90
PS-1a_3 - - 7.91 7.92 7.91 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
PS-1a_4 - - - 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.93 7.93
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.13 8.13 8.13 8.12 8.12 8.09
PS-2a_1 - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.17 12.17 12.15 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.16 12.14 12.17 12.17
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.17 12.17
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17
D10 8.75 8.75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.27 9.27 9.27 9.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.54 9.54 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.67 8.67 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.61 8.63 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.54 8.66 8.71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.24 8.33 8.42 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.21 8.34 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.41 8.41 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 8.00 8.05 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.04 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.14 8.16 8.15
E8 7.90 7.92 7.97 8.02 8.02 8.03 8.02 8.03 8.02 8.02 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page16of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT STARTS PER YEAR

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 10 21 14 18 20 16 16 19 10 19 16 12 13 21 11 9 21 8 18
PS-1a_2 - 10 20 11 11 17 25 12 22 12 16 17 11 10 21 15 18 13 15 16
PS-1a_3 - - 21 14 11 18 9 9 11 11 20 14 16 20 11 14 16 18 12 15
PS-1a_4 - - - 24 12 25 18 22 21 17 10 19 9 17 8 15 16 15 12 14
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 219 207 228 209 21 22
PS-2a_1 - - - 105 82 112 101 97 93 97 112 97 100 92 239 240 246 254 62 54
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 250 246 268 245 229 203 212 228 230 103 96
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 332 327 343 346 95 93
D10 310 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 287 269 169 202 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 339 289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 280 289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 20 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 262 225 299 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 275 333 431 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 93 91 194 333 292 313 296 296 301 317 311 327 298 333 - - - - - -
E6 43 60 204 258 270 271 278 268 261 223 252 243 242 266 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 37 123 125 117 112 114 121 125 144 121 130 133 126 122 112 122 47 43
E8 37 42 34 36 41 35 33 31 34 38 28 37 33 36 38 33 32 39 39 37
GT5 129 87 129 194 252 238 258 241 273 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 90 73 100 44 80 89 78 86 78 88 97 81 88 93 86 88 81 79 35 29
GT7 105 61 106 50 86 105 101 99 91 92 111 93 114 106 101 88 90 94 30 32
GT8 70 56 94 51 90 101 93 88 98 81 99 87 109 73 74 72 73 85 46 35

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page17of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

UNIT RUN HOURS PER YEAR

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 5,853 7,926 7,950 7,929 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_2 - 5,853 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_3 - - 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,857 7,903 8,017 7,950 7,921 7,920 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_4 - - - 7,896 7,917 7,898 7,918 7,899 7,901 7,915 7,926 7,925 7,926 7,919 7,857 8,006 7,901 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,737 6,632 6,754 6,723 7,247 7,244
PS-2a_1 - - - 724 883 1,077 931 1,045 1,015 944 1,206 861 1,278 865 1,898 2,212 2,011 1,975 1,301 867
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 2,052 1,816 2,037 1,926 1,814 2,212 2,192 2,356 2,175 1,851 1,761
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,034 3,915 3,997 4,372 4,435 3,876
D10 3,220 2,673 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 2,603 2,103 1,301 1,876 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 2,568 2,177 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,951 2,529 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 1,910 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,488 2,002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 6,016 5,936 4,327 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,193 5,690 4,890 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,558 7,528 6,258 5,794 5,721 5,817 5,904 5,714 5,974 5,832 5,810 5,866 5,912 6,249 - - - - - -
E6 7,258 7,155 5,823 4,415 4,686 4,530 4,638 4,773 4,819 4,920 4,855 4,992 4,873 5,232 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,249 7,249 6,858 6,812 6,861 6,848 6,860 6,863 6,806 6,768 6,917 6,765 6,842 6,849 6,816 6,915 6,822 7,249 7,692
E8 7,412 7,413 7,413 7,438 7,413 7,414 7,414 7,436 7,412 7,408 7,414 7,438 7,414 7,407 7,414 7,438 7,399 7,414 7,414 7,431
GT5 851 482 817 1,146 1,648 1,511 1,654 1,672 1,733 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 621 394 627 331 614 688 604 758 620 577 566 522 590 551 513 478 489 441 402 177
GT7 808 386 647 398 756 918 848 804 776 603 713 559 810 577 480 478 504 537 508 316
GT8 598 329 523 387 671 891 742 754 748 487 562 487 723 467 437 374 455 493 541 293

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page18of19
AppendixD3Case1Results

VARIABLE O&M ($/MWH)

Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 11.96 12.19 12.46 12.75 13.03 13.32 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.56 14.89 15.23 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_2 - 11.96 12.19 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.56 14.89 15.23 15.58 15.92 16.28 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_3 - - 12.20 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_4 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.23 15.57 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.40 17.79
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D10 12.03 12.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.03 12.29 12.57 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.03 12.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 10.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.18 10.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.29 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.27 12.55 12.84 13.13 13.42 13.73 14.03 14.34 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.28 12.57 12.85 13.14 13.43 13.73 14.04 14.36 14.68 15.01 15.35 15.70 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.27 12.55 12.84 13.12 13.43 13.72 14.03 14.35 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 16.40 16.77 17.14 17.52 17.93 18.33
E8 12.02 12.28 12.57 12.85 13.14 13.44 13.74 14.05 14.36 14.68 15.02 15.35 15.70 16.05 16.41 16.78 17.16 17.54 17.93 18.34
GT5 7.16 7.32 7.48 7.64 7.81 7.99 8.16 8.35 8.53 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.47 8.63 8.85 9.03 9.24 9.44 9.65 9.88 10.11 10.32 10.54 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.53 11.78 12.07 12.32 12.56 12.85
GT7 8.47 8.65 8.84 9.04 9.25 9.44 9.64 9.88 10.10 10.33 10.55 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.53 11.80 12.07 12.32 12.58 12.86
GT8 8.47 8.65 8.84 9.04 9.25 9.44 9.65 9.88 10.10 10.34 10.55 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.52 11.79 12.05 12.33 12.57 12.85

Existing WTE

Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

BELCOPromodCase1 Page19of19

Appendix D4
CASE 2 RESULTS

AppendixD4Case2Results

BELCO - Annual Power Supply Costs by Component


250,000 Case 2

200,000

150,000
$000

100,000

50,000

-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Debt Service - Generation Debt Service - T & D
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure
Fuel - Existing Fuel - New

800 BELCO - Annual Energy Supply by Component


Case 2
700
600
500
GWh

400
300
200
100
-
2017
HFO
2019 2021 2023LFO 2025 2027 2029 2031
LNG
2033 2035
Tynes Bay - WTE Utility PV Wind
Future Renewables Commercial PV Distributed Solar Water Heating
Energy Efficiency System Load (net of DSM)

BELCOPromodCase2 Page1of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

240 BELCO - Annual Capacity Supply by Component


220 Case 2
200
180
160
140
MW

120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Existing Thermal New Thermal Existing WTE
New Renewables Peak (net of DSM) Reserves

250 BELCO - Annual Supply Side Capacity Additions


Case 2
200

150
(MW)

100

50

0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Recip. MSD GT CC (1x1)
Utility Solar Wind Generic Renewable
Battery Refuel: E5 - E8 Recip. MSD Refuel: GT5 - GT8

BELCOPromodCase2 Page2of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS

Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
AMORTIZED CAPITAL COSTS
Debt Service - Generation $000 37,193 1,270 14,978 26,295 64,120 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 45,212 45,212 45,212 45,212 45,212 50,496 50,496 50,496 50,496
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 8,575 - 2,704 5,468 8,295 11,185 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379
Early Retirement Depreciation Cost $000 99 185 185 370 370 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 18,250 83,498 65,278 36,731 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel - New $000 51,457 - 22,927 43,207 63,459 60,953 62,137 63,897 65,201 58,506 60,182 61,014 62,112 63,287 64,182 66,252 68,012 71,288 73,675 73,447 74,882
Variable O&M - Existing $000 1,544 7,321 5,198 3,155 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Variable O&M - New $000 5,178 - 2,172 4,046 6,678 6,449 6,581 6,714 6,858 6,176 6,299 6,424 6,508 6,640 6,786 6,923 7,052 5,643 5,710 5,578 5,719
Fixed O&M - Existing $000 703 3,027 2,176 2,010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fixed O&M - New $000 2,394 - 480 838 2,633 2,692 2,752 2,814 2,878 2,942 3,009 3,076 3,167 3,238 3,311 3,386 3,462 4,979 5,091 5,206 5,323
Renewable $000 8,738 4,167 4,602 5,660 8,594 8,817 9,070 9,336 9,637 9,908 10,216 10,539 10,906 11,235 11,609 12,002 12,448 12,848 13,303 13,780 14,322
DSM $000 3,160 131 325 507 812 1,049 1,505 1,806 2,395 2,777 3,552 4,031 5,037 5,633 6,924 7,660 9,303 10,208 12,281 13,389 15,990
TOTAL COSTS $000 145,389 127,654 136,609 144,378 169,993 148,858 136,616 139,138 141,539 134,880 137,828 139,655 144,321 146,625 149,403 152,815 156,868 166,841 171,935 173,276 178,111
$/MWh 214.7 192.0 205.2 216.2 253.7 221.5 202.7 205.8 208.8 198.3 202.1 204.1 210.3 213.0 216.4 220.7 225.9 239.5 246.1 247.3 253.4

BELCOPromodCase2 Page3of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

ANNUAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS


Nominal Dollars ($000)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_4 - - - 28,385 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 19,454 - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50,865 - - -
PS-7aa - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ad - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7da - - - 2,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dc - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dd - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-5 - - - 176,338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - 1,725 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - 1,710 1,749 1,788 1,829 1,870 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Distributed Solar Water Heating - 24,318 24,865 25,424 25,996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Energy Efficiency 131 316 489 784 1,013 1,465 1,765 2,354 2,736 3,511 3,990 4,997 5,592 6,883 7,619 9,263 10,167 12,241 13,348 15,949
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 28,186 185,023 193,365 268,680 43,360 3,334 1,765 2,354 2,736 3,511 3,990 24,451 5,592 6,883 7,619 9,263 61,033 12,241 13,348 15,949

BELCOPromodCase2 Page4of19
AppendixD4 Case2Results

SYSTEM GENERATION SUMMARY

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 563 532 572 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO GWH 75 94 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GWH - - - 545 512 510 510 508 446 444 443 442 441 440 438 436 437 436 418 416
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Wind GWH - - - 32 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
Future Renewables GWH - - - - - - - - 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 82 82
Distributed Solar Water Heating GWH - 3 6 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Energy Efficiency GWH 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Commercial PV GWH - 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 677 679 681 683 685 687 689 691 694 695 699 701 706 708

GENERATION MIX (% OF TOTAL)


HFO % 85% 80% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LFO % 11% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LNG (includes CHP) % 0% 0% 0% 81% 76% 76% 75% 75% 65% 65% 65% 64% 64% 64% 63% 63% 63% 62% 59% 59%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Wind % 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Future Renewables % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 12% 12%
Distributed Solar Water Heating % 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Energy Efficiency % 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10%
Commercial PV % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BELCOPromodCase2 Page5of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUMMARY

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

BELCO
ENERGY
Existing Thermal GWH 638 445 258 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal GWH - 181 332 545 512 510 510 508 446 444 443 442 441 440 438 436 437 436 418 416
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
New Renewables GWH - 6 38 79 107 107 107 106 168 168 168 168 167 167 167 167 167 167 185 185
TOTAL ENERGY 662 656 651 647 643 641 640 638 637 636 634 633 632 630 629 627 628 626 628 625
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 10 16 23 30 34 37 40 44 47 50 54 57 61 64 68 71 75 79 82
System Load GWH 662 656 651 647 642 640 639 638 636 635 634 632 631 629 628 626 625 624 622 620
LOLH HOURS 5 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dump Energy GWH - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Emergency Energy GWH 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 738 686 734 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO BBL (000) 135 186 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GBTU - - - 4,682 4,374 4,356 4,353 4,332 3,786 3,770 3,752 3,746 3,734 3,720 3,711 3,693 3,752 3,761 3,641 3,604
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EMISSIONS / RPS
Energy from Renewables % 4% 5% 10% 16% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 31% 34% 34%
CO2 TONS (000) 466 461 419 274 256 255 255 253 221 221 219 219 218 218 217 216 219 220 213 211
CO2 Intensity LBS/MWH 1,401 1,385 1,254 818 762 756 753 747 651 647 641 639 635 630 627 622 630 630 608 600
NOX TONS (000) 25 22 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAPACITY
Existing Thermal MW 152 129 103 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal MW - 42 42 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 136 136 136 136 136 127 127 127 127
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
New Renewables MW - 3 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 178 165 154 154 154 154 154 154 153 153 155 155 155 155 154 145 145 145 145
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 14
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 108 108 107 106 106 106 105 105 105 105 104 104 104 104 104 103 103 103 103
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Total Capacity Requirements MW 148 147 146 142 142 141 141 141 141 140 140 141 141 140 140 140 144 143 143 143
Surplus/(Deficiency) MW 9.2 31.5 18.7 11.8 12.4 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.1 13.2 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7

BELCOPromodCase2 Page6of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Unit Fuel
PS-1a_1 - 7,834 15,105 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 7,502 13,803 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 7,590 14,298 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 9,746 9,713 9,990 10,316 11,087 10,494 10,678 10,966 11,338 11,472 12,048 12,068 12,710 9,969 9,620 9,623 10,924
PS-1c_2 - - - 9,762 9,653 10,133 10,307 10,123 9,567 9,997 9,706 10,177 11,124 10,981 10,680 10,959 9,398 9,848 9,686 9,208
PS-1c_3 - - - 8,671 8,570 8,199 8,901 9,475 8,258 9,238 9,190 9,834 9,446 8,411 9,533 9,911 9,114 10,114 8,856 10,164
PS-1c_4 - - - 7,685 7,988 8,231 8,039 8,109 8,454 8,569 8,897 8,283 8,353 9,549 9,735 9,495 9,177 9,450 9,758 9,722
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 875 908 782 760 725 1,805 2,537 3,600 3,301
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,791 20,304 19,262 19,572
PS-7aa - - - 7,650 7,611 7,768 7,973 8,201 8,238 7,945 8,654 8,758 8,992 9,063 9,657 10,142 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 7,122 6,678 7,031 7,101 7,155 6,653 6,735 6,707 7,167 7,463 7,776 7,781 8,910 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 4,923 4,542 4,663 4,928 5,027 3,450 3,590 3,657 3,454 3,516 3,724 3,820 3,607 7,352 7,074 7,024 7,375
PS-7ad - - - 3,473 3,197 3,320 3,282 3,340 1,949 2,100 2,110 1,751 1,672 1,614 1,954 1,263 3,666 3,457 3,763 3,281
PS-7da - - - 1,938 1,592 1,601 1,673 1,494 846 832 675 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 884 498 382 496 389 182 134 136 159 107 69 76 72 366 409 720 574
PS-7dc - - - 780 441 339 452 381 171 137 130 130 74 60 50 86 283 378 484 307
PS-7dd - - - 825 470 479 432 419 245 228 186 187 159 105 142 132 368 484 672 455
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

New Thermal Unit Variable O&M


PS-1a_1 - 743 1,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 710 1,290 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 719 1,338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 1,077 1,066 1,095 1,124 1,206 1,134 1,142 1,177 1,221 1,236 1,305 1,291 1,348 1,039 995 984 1,109
PS-1c_2 - - - 1,078 1,059 1,111 1,123 1,099 1,029 1,066 1,038 1,092 1,196 1,185 1,137 1,156 971 1,010 986 931
PS-1c_3 - - - 953 934 892 965 1,023 884 980 978 1,049 1,009 902 1,007 1,041 943 1,034 899 1,025
PS-1c_4 - - - 841 869 894 866 871 903 906 944 880 886 1,020 1,030 993 946 967 992 980
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 559 569 534 539
PS-7aa - - - 834 825 840 856 879 879 838 917 932 956 967 1,020 1,059 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 774 721 759 761 765 708 710 712 760 792 830 820 935 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 532 489 502 526 536 366 377 385 366 373 395 401 376 758 723 714 743
PS-7ad - - - 376 343 356 350 355 206 220 223 185 177 171 204 131 377 353 381 330
PS-7da - - - 85 70 71 73 65 36 35 29 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 46 25 20 25 20 9 7 7 8 5 3 4 3 18 19 34 27
PS-7dc - - - 40 23 17 23 19 9 7 7 6 4 3 2 4 14 18 23 14
PS-7dd - - - 42 23 24 21 21 12 11 9 9 8 5 7 6 17 22 31 21
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BELCOPromodCase2 Page7of19
AppendixD4Case2Results

UNIT COSTS ($000)

Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Units Fixed O&M
PS-1a_1