Electricity Gifs Strategy Final Report Summary PDF

The Power of Experience
Submitted to:
Caribbean Regional Electricity

Generation, Interconnection,
and Fuels Supply Strategy
World Bank
Final Report
Executive Summary
Submitted By:
March 2010
Contents
Section
Page
Section 1
Executive Summary
1-1
1.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Approach ...................................................................................................................... 1-6
1.3
Load Forecast ............................................................................................................... 1-6
1.4
Fuel Supply .................................................................................................................. 1-9
1.5
Project and Technology Analysis .............................................................................. 1-10
1.6
Regional Strategies .................................................................................................... 1-25
1.7
Country Summaries ................................................................................................... 1-26
1.8
Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 1-42
Table
Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ii

Table 1-1 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW) ..................................................................... 1-7
Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh) .................................................................................. 1-8
Table 1-3 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ....................................................... 1-9
Table 1-4 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (million
US$) ................................................................................................................................... 1-26
Figure
Page
Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map............................................................................................ 1-3

Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study ................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study ..................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic ........................................................................ 1-11
Figure 1-5 Other Options for Dominican Republic ................................................................... 1-12
Figure 1-6 Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) Proposed Route ....................................... 1-14
Figure 1-7 Dominica Interconnections ...................................................................................... 1-16
Figure 1-8 Nevis Puerto Rico and Nevis US Virgin Islands Interconnections .................... 1-17
Figure 1-9 Saba St. Maarten Interconnection ......................................................................... 1-18
Figure 1-10 Haiti Dominican Republic Interconnection ........................................................ 1-19
Figure 1-11 United States (Florida) Cuba Interconnection..................................................... 1-20
Figure 1-12 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections .................................................................. 1-21
Figure 1-13 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative .......................................................... 1-22
Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options ...................................................... 1-24
Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options...................................................... 1-24
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations

APC
APUA
BL&P
CC, CCGT
CFB
CNG
CO2
CSP
CT
DOMLEC
DR
ECGP
EDH, EdH
GJ
GRENLEC
GT
GWH, GWh
HFO
IBRD
IDA
JPS
km
kV
kW
kWh
LCL
LNG
LSD
LUCELEC
m
MEM
MSD
MVA
MW
NPV
O&M
PV
USA
US$
V
VINLEC
yr
Antigua Power Company

Antigua Public Utility Authority
Barbados Light and Power
Combined cycle gas turbine
Circulating fluidized bed
Compressed natural gas
Carbon dioxide
Concentrating solar power
Combustion turbine
Dominica Electricity Services Limited
Dominican Republic
Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline
Electricite d'Haiti
Gigajoule
Grenada Energy Services Ltd.
Gas turbine
Gigawatt-hour
Heavy fuel oil
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
International Development Association
Jamaica Public Service
Kilometer
Kilovolt
Kilowatt
Kilowatt-hour
Least cost line
Liquefied natural gas
Low speed diesel
St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd.
Meter
Ministry of Energy and Mining (Jamaica)
Medium speed diesel
Megavolt-ampere
Megawatt
Net present value
Operations and maintenance
Photovoltaic
United States of America
United States dollar
Volt
St. Vincent Electricity Service Ltd.
Year
ii
Section 1
1.1
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels
Supply Strategy (the Study) is to analyze the availability of technically and financially sound
regional and sub-regional energy solutions for power generation rather than specific energy
solutions for each Caribbean country.
The energy solutions involve new fuels or fuel transport modes (pipeline gas, compressed natural
gas [CNG], liquefied natural gas [LNG], coal), new energy resources for power generation
(primarily wind and geothermal), and new electrical interconnections among islands, none of
which are presently interconnected. The immediate goal of studying these areas was to reduce
the Caribbean islands dependence on high price imported distillate and heavy fuel oil (HFO). A
related goal was that solutions would emerge that reduced costs, reduced environmental impacts,
and increased the integration of the Caribbean islands. The entire Caribbean region is presented
on Figure 1-1.
We note at the outset that we have identified no truly regional energy solutions, not even one
covering the nine countries of primary emphasis mentioned in the second paragraph below. We
have identified and analyzed, to varying degrees of detail, 11 submarine cable electrical
interconnections between two countries and one land-based interconnection. Some of these twocountry sub-regional interconnections are part of larger schemes involving three or more
countries. The only sub-regional fuel project the Study evaluated was the five-country Eastern
Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP). Schemes involving LNG or CNG implicitly or explicitly rely
on some common facilities when more than one country is a user, but in that sense they are not
different from the current delivery modes for distillate and HFO and were analyzed on a countryby-country basis.
It is interesting that the goal of reducing dependence on high price imported oil products and the
goal of reducing environmental impacts and increasing the integration of the region turned out to
be complementary. The most direct benefit of an interconnection comes when one country has a
source of low cost power and its neighbor does not. The three lowest cost resources for
operation at capacity factors above about 30% are renewables: geothermal, wind (including the
cost of backup generation), and small hydro. This assumes that high quality sites can be
identified and acquired. Geothermal is the source of generation and drives the benefits for many
of the interconnections. Thus geothermal on a local and sub-regional basis, and wind on a local
basis, provide a path toward a less oil-dependent, lower cost, lower environmental impact, more
sustainable future.
The primary emphasis of the Study is on the nine countries in the Caribbean eligible for support
from the International Development Association (IDA) and/or the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Those countries are presented, together with their
relative electricity market share, on Figure 1-2. These nine include:
1-1
Six small countries in the Lesser Antilles: St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica, total combined
population about 600,000
Three countries located on two of the four islands in the Greater Antilles: Haiti and
the Dominican Republic, both on the island Hispaniola, and Jamaica, total population
about 22,000,000
The Study also considered other relevant countries, presented on Figure 1-3, that might be part of
a regional energy solution. In addition to the nine countries mentioned above, we visited or
obtained significant data on Barbados1, Trinidad and Tobago, and Martinique; somewhat less on
Guadeloupe; and cursory information on Puerto Rico, Sint Maarten, and Cuba. We also obtained
cursory information on power generation in Florida.
Barbados was addressed in more details as par of the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline project analysis.
1-2
Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map
1-3
Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study
1-4
Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study
1-5
1.2
APPROACH
Our approach included the following main steps:
Collect the foundation data needed to conduct the work
Prepare a peak and energy demand forecast for each country and the Study countries
as a whole
Forecast fuel costs for all fuels used, including pipeline gas, LNG, CNG, and coal
Estimate fuel transportation costs for each fuel to each country and determine
effective fuel price
1.3
Determine the performance and cost parameters of all existing power generation units
Determine the performance and cost parameters of power generation units suitable for
meeting future demand
Evaluate the cost and performance parameters for power generation from renewable
energy, and estimate the availability of renewable energy resources
Evaluate submarine cable technology
Identify and evaluate submarine cable and land-based transmission interconnections
Develop scenarios that include a range of approaches to regional power generation,

and combine the most attractive components in an proposed scenario
Report on and present the results (such as in this report)

LOAD FORECAST
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 provides peak and energy demand forecasts for each country / island and for
the region as a whole.
1-6
Table 1-1 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW)
Year
Antigua
Dominican
and
Barbados Dominica
Grenada
Republic
Barbuda
Haiti
Jamaica
St. Kitts
Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent
and
Martinique Guadeloupe
Grenadines
Total
2009
54
170
15
2,353
31
226
680
29
10
56
27
242
250
4,142
2010
57
176
15
2,447
33
237
707
30
10
58
28
247
256
4,302
2011
60
182
16
2,544
34
249
736
31
11
61
30
255
263
4,472
2012
63
188
16
2,640
36
261
767
32
11
63
32
263
269
4,643
2013
65
195
17
2,727
38
274
799
33
12
65
35
272
276
4,808
2014
67
201
17
2,803
40
288
832
35
13
68
37
281
284
4,965
2015
69
208
18
2,896
42
303
867
36
13
70
40
290
291
5,143
2016
71
216
18
2,992
45
318
904
37
14
73
42
297
298
5,324
2017
73
223
19
3,091
47
334
943
38
15
76
45
303
305
5,512
2018
75
231
19
3,194
50
350
983
40
16
79
48
310
313
5,708
2019
77
239
20
3,300
52
368
1,026
41
17
82
52
317
321
5,911
2020
80
247
20
3,409
55
386
1,071
43
18
85
55
324
329
6,121
2021
82
256
21
3,522
58
405
1,116
44
19
88
59
331
337
6,339
2022
85
265
21
3,638
61
426
1,165
46
20
91
63
339
346
6,565
2023
87
274
22
3,758
64
447
1,214
47
21
95
68
346
354
6,798
2024
90
284
22
3,882
68
469
1,267
49
23
98
72
354
363
7,041
2025
92
294
23
4,010
72
493
1,322
51
24
102
77
362
372
7,293
2026
95
304
24
4,143
75
517
1,379
52
25
106
83
370
381
7,555
2027
98
314
24
4,280
80
543
1,439
54
27
110
88
378
391
7,827
2028
101
325
25
4,421
84
570
1,502
56
29
114
94
387
400
8,109
Growth
Rate
3.3%
3.5%
2.7%
3.4%
5.4%
5.0%
4.3%
3.5%
5.9%
3.8%
6.9%
2.5%
2.5%
3.6%
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Interim Report
1-7
Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh)

Year
Antigua
Dominican
and
Barbados Dominica
Grenada
Republic
Barbuda
Haiti
Jamaica
St. Kitts
Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent
and
Martinique Guadeloupe
Grenadines
Total
2009
318
1,039
87
12,638
198
660
4,490
161
60
345
156
1,575
1,663
23,391
2010
315
1,073
89
13,142
209
726
4,674
166
67
356
167
1,620
1,720
24,322
2011
312
1,107
91
13,663
220
799
4,865
171
74
367
178
1,672
1,775
25,295
2012
410
1,143
94
14,179
232
878
5,066
175
82
378
191
1,727
1,832
26,387
2013
422
1,180
96
14,646
244
966
5,277
180
86
390
204
1,783
1,888
27,363
2014
434
1,218
99
15,054
257
1,063
5,494
186
90
402
218
1,840
1,947
28,303
2015
447
1,258
101
15,554
270
1,169
5,726
191
94
415
233
1,900
2,003
29,362
2016
461
1,298
104
16,070
285
1,286
5,974
196
99
428
249
1,938
2,060
30,448
2017
475
1,340
106
16,601
300
1,415
6,232
202
103
442
266
1,978
2,117
31,576
2018
489
1,384
109
17,154
316
1,556
6,497
208
107
455
284
2,018
2,174
32,751
2019
503
1,428
112
17,724
333
1,712
6,777
214
111
470
304
2,058
2,233
33,979
2020
519
1,475
114
18,309
350
1,883
7,073
220
115
484
325
2,100
2,284
35,252
2021
534
1,522
117
18,914
369
1,977
7,376
226
119
500
348
2,142
2,337
36,483
2022
550
1,572
120
19,539
389
2,076
7,696
233
124
515
372
2,186
2,390
37,761
2023
567
1,622
123
20,184
409
2,180
8,024
239
129
531
397
2,230
2,445
39,082
2024
583
1,675
126
20,851
431
2,289
8,370
246
134
548
425
2,275
2,501
40,454
2025
600
1,729
129
21,539
454
2,403
8,734
253
139
565
454
2,321
2,559
41,881
2026
618
1,785
133
22,251
478
2,523
9,114
261
145
583
485
2,368
2,618
43,361
2027
636
1,843
136
22,986
504
2,650
9,510
268
150
601
519
2,416
2,679
44,897
2028
654
1,902
139
23,745
530
2,782
9,924
276
156
620
555
2,465
2,741
46,490
Growth
Rate
3.9%
3.2%
2.5%
3.4%
5.3%
7.9%
4.3%
2.9%
5.2%
3.1%
6.9%
2.4%
2.7%
3.7%
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Interim Report
1-8
1.4
FUEL SUPPLY
The forecast levelized price of distillate over 2014-2028, the assumed study period for the new
projects being considered, is US$22.45/GJ. Each country except Dominica has at least one
lower cost fuel option, and many countries have more than one. Table 1-3 provides the
comparative prices. Distillate, LNG, and pipeline gas can be compared directly because they can
fuel the same generators. Coal fuels generators with higher capital costs and higher heat rates,
which must be taken into account in comparing fuel options. The prices of all fuels except
distillate vary from country to country because they include transportation costs that vary.
Table 1-3 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028
Country
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Haiti
Jamaica
Jamaica North
Martinique
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and
Grenadines
Fuels Selected in
Addition to Coal and
Distillate
None
Pipeline Gas
Distillate only
LNG
None
Pipeline Gas
LNG
LNG
LNG
Pipeline Gas
None
Pipeline Gas
None
Levelized Fuel Price, US$/GJ

Fuel
Selected
Coal
Distillate
N/A
12.31
22.45
7.39
7.77
22.45
N/A
N/A
22.45
8.73
4.19
22.45
N/A
12.31
22.45
10.88
7.77
22.45
12.73
7.77
22.45
10.16
4.85
22.45
10.90
4.85
22.45
8.99
7.77
22.45
N/A
12.31
22.45
10.49
9.04
22.45
N/A
12.31
22.45
Coal is an optional fuel for every country except Dominica, where preliminary analysis showed
it to be more costly than distillate on a US$/GJ basis.
Table 1-3 shows the following:
Every country except Dominica has at least one fuel option lower in price than
distillate
Pipeline gas is the lowest cost natural gas option for every country reached by the
ECGP: Barbados, Martinique, St. Lucia, and Guadeloupe
Coal is the only optional fuel for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis,
and St. Vincent and Grenadines
LNG is the lowest cost natural gas option for Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica,
and Jamaica North
1-9
CNG was considered and was the lowest cost gas option for several countries, but for those
countries was always higher in cost than distillate and therefore does not appear in Table 15-1. It
was considerably lower than distillate for some countries, but was more costly than LNG in those
countries.
Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an
economically attractive option for some countries.
1.5
PROJECT AND TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS
Screening analysis is an approach to comparing the costs of different technologies to determine

the least cost technology across the range of annual capacity factors:
Uses simplified representations of generation costs to help identify least cost generating
technologies
Plots annual cost in $/kW-year vs. capacity factor for a set of power plant and/or fuel
options
The cost in $/kW-yr can also be easily expressed in cents/kWh, which are also of interest
but are curved and somewhat harder to interpret than the straight lines in $/kW-yr
Annual cost is sum of:

Annualized investment-related costs based on initial capital investment, discount
rate, and plant lifetime
Fixed annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
Variable cost (includes fuel cost and variable O&M costs) per kWh times capacity
factor times hours per year
1.5.1
Selects lowest cost resources at each capacity factor, producing the least-cost line
for that set of resources
Isolated Countries / Islands
Figure 1-4 illustrates the screening analysis approach. It presents the Fossil Least Cost Line
(Fossil LCL) that applies for the Dominican Republic. The word Fossil means that only fossil
fueled generation is included in determining the LCL. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is
on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises
50 MW GT on LNG for capacity factors of zero through 20%, the 300 MW CC on LNG for
capacity factors from 25% through 40%, and the conventional coal plant for capacity factors
from 45% through 90%. In other words, the generation expansion plan based on this analysis
would include gas turbines for peaking duty, combined cycles for mid-range duty, and
conventional coal for base load duty.
In order to achieve the Fossil LCL the Dominican Republic would have to undertake large
capital investments for expansion related to coal and LNG transportation, and for coal plants
themselves. This may pose a challenge, even if the desire to do so exists. LNG is preferable for
application at lower capacity factors, coal for application at higher capacity factors. The scenario
analysis provides more information on which is preferable overall, if doing both is not feasible.
1-10
Figure 1-5 expands upon Figure 1-4 by adding wind, small hydro, and fossil options to the graph
of Figure 1-1. The small hydro line coincidentally overlaps with the wind with backup line at
capacity factors from 30% to 40%. Wind with backup, which is typically a better comparison
than wind without backup, is now marginally economic at the capacity factors where it might
operate at a good site. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 50 MW gas
turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the
capacity factor.
Figure 1-5 also illustrates what might occur if neither coal nor LNG is available for future
generation for the Dominican Republic. The periwinkle line represents the cost of a 300 MW
HFO-fueled steam plant. Without expanded supplies of LNG or coal, costs will more than triple
at high capacity factors.
Dominican Republic has under construction or planned considerable new small hydro and wind
generation. Figure 1-5 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be
identified.
80
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr

50 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr
300 MW CC LNG US$/kW-yr
300 MW Conv Coal, US$/kW-yr
Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
2,000
70
60
50
1,500
40
1,000
30
20
Cost, US cents/kWh
Annual Cost, $/kW-year
2,500
500
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Capacity Factor, %
Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic
1-11
80
1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr
1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr
300 MW ST HFO DR US$/kW-yr
Small Hydro US$/kW-yr
2,000
1,500
70
60
50
40
1,000
30
20
Cost, US cents/kWh
2,500
500
10
0
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Capacity Factor, %
Figure 1-5 Other Options for Dominican Republic

The bullets below summarize the least cost technology/fossil fuel combination by country as
determined by screening analysis. This considers the countries and islands as isolated systems.
For some countries, imports via submarine cable (to be discussed later) provide a lower cost
solution. We eliminated the technology/fuel combinations that were least cost at only one annual
capacity factor, such as zero or 90%. Scenario analysis generally supports these conclusions,
though multiple fuels were not used as much.
Individual Countries
Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines: 10 MW MSD on
distillate for peaking and mid-range duty, and the coal-fueled CFB for base load duty
Coal-fueled CFB is only marginally more economic than distillate fueled medium
speed diesels (MSD) plants; CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make the distillatefueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units
Dominica, St. Kitts, and Nevis: 5 MW MSD on distillate for peaking, mid-range, and
base load duty
St. Kitts and Nevis are fortunate that a geothermal resource sufficient to serve all
their demand has been confirmed and is in the process of development. For
Dominica it seems highly probable that a geothermal resource sufficient to serve
at least local demand will be confirmed and developed. None of these islands
may not need to install any new distillate-fueled generation.
Dominican Republic: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 300 MW CC on LNG

for mid-range duty, and 300 MW conventional coal plant for base load duty
1-12
The Dominican Republic already has an LNG terminal and coal-fueled power
plants. Scenario analysis shows that coal is preferred if only one fuel can be
selected for future additions. However, incorporating CO2 costs in the analysis
would compromise coals advantage. With the Dominican Republics large
demand, expanding the use of both fuels may be feasible, even if new facilities
are needed.
Haiti: 20 MW LSD on LNG for peaking, mid-range, and base load duty.
LNG provides very large benefits but requires significant up-front capital
expenditures
Jamaica and Jamaica North: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 20 MW LSD on

LNG for mid-range duty, and 50 MW coal-fueled CFB base load duty
Today Jamaica and Jamaica North have neither fuel. It seems unlikely that they
would want to develop both fuels. If only one is to be developed, LNG is
preferred, and its advantage would increase if CO2 costs are incorporated in the
analysis.
We emphasize that for some countries, imports via submarine cable provide a lower cost
solution. This is addressed in the next subsection.
Sub-regional Gas Market
The ECGP links the markets of the four countries and provides the benefits of economies of
scale compared to individual development.
Barbados, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and St. Lucia: 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for

peaking duty and 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas for mid-range and base load duty
For all four countries the pipeline gas is less than half as costly as distillate. For
all but St. Lucia, LNG is more costly than pipeline gas but significantly less costly
than distillate.
The low gas price reduces the benefits of renewables and for Martinique and
Guadeloupe makes importing geothermal power from Dominica via submarine
cable marginal.
Figure 1-6 illustrates the ECGP gas connections among the countries.
1-13
Figure 1-6 Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) Proposed Route

1.5.2
Sub-regional Electricity Markets
The first three bullets below show the interconnections studied with greatest emphasis. All the
interconnections were submarine cables except the Dominican Republic Haiti link noted in the
bottom bullet. The interconnections are presented in Figures 1-7 to 1-13. For each
interconnection we note its capacity in MW, length in km, cost per kW for interconnection and
related facilities only, source of export power, and economic attractiveness.
1-14
Nevis St. Kitts, 50 MW submarine cable capacity, 5 km submarine cable length,

US$328/kW (interconnection and related facilities only), geothermal power export,
highly economic
Dominica Martinique, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related

facilities only), geothermal power export, marginally economic if displaced fuel is
gas from ECGP, more economic if displaced fuel is higher cost
Dominica Guadeloupe, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related

facilities only), geothermal power export, moderately economic if displaced fuel is
gas from ECGP, more economic if displaced fuel is higher cost
Nevis Puerto Rico, 400 MW, 400 km, US$1,791/kW (interconnection and related
facilities only), geothermal power export, highly economic if displaced fuel is HFO,
not economic if displaced fuel is LNG
Nevis US Virgin Islands, 80 MVA, 320 km, US$3,541/kW (interconnection and

related facilities only), geothermal power export, only marginally economic even
though the displaced fuel is distillate
Saba St. Maarten, 100 MW, 60 km, US$528/kW (interconnection and related
facilities only), geothermal power export, highly economic if displaced fuel is
distillate and St. Maarten can accept 100 MW
United States (Florida) Cuba, 400 MW, 400 km, US$1,791/kW (interconnection
and related facilities only), export from coal-fueled steam plant or gas-fueled
combined cycle, highly economic if displaced fuel is HFO
Dominican Republic Haiti, 250 MW, 563 km, US$1,899/kW (interconnection and
related facilities only), land interconnection, export from HFO fueled steam plant, not
economic unless export is from lower cost unit/fuel combination
We also developed basic data and cost estimates for four potential interconnections that might
form part of a Northern Ring, a conceptual set of interconnections in the northern Caribbean,
potentially linking Florida Cuba Haiti Dominican Republic Puerto Rico Nevis, or some
subset of those areas. The Northern Ring interconnections not covered above include:
Puerto Rico Dominican Republic, 400 MW, 150 km, US$705/kW (interconnection and
related facilities only)
Haiti Cuba, 400 MW, 200 km, US$705/kW (interconnection and related facilities only)
Haiti Jamaica, 400 MW, 250 km, US$998/kW (interconnection and related facilities
only)
Florida Haiti, 400 MW, 1,100 km, US$3,488/kW (interconnection and related
facilities only
We did not conduct economic analysis on these four interconnections. The cost per kW for the
three shorter interconnections is in what might be an economically viable range if the sending
country had low power costs and the importing countrys displaced fuel was distillate, HFO, or
crude. The Florida Haiti interconnection appears to be outside that range. Costs for the middle
1-15
islands would involve their sharing some of the costs of interconnections closer to the low-cost
source, making favorable economics more difficult to achieve.
Figure 1-7 Dominica Interconnections
1-16
Figure 1-8 Nevis Puerto Rico and Nevis US Virgin Islands Interconnections
1-17
Figure 1-9 Saba St. Maarten Interconnection
1-18
Figure 1-10 Haiti Dominican Republic Interconnection
1-19
Figure 1-11 United States (Florida) Cuba Interconnection
1-20
Figure 1-12 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections
1-21
Figure 1-13 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative
1-22
1.5.3
Renewable Energy
Wind, geothermal, small hydro, and biomass technology/fuel combinations have the potential, at
a good site, to be considerably less costly than distillate fueled power generation. The three
lowest cost resources for operation at capacity factors above about 30% are renewables:
geothermal, wind (including the cost of backup generation), and small hydro. This assumes that
high quality sites can be identified and acquired. Solar PV and solar trough CSP are not
competitive for bulk power generation. There are many small solar PV installations in
Martinique due to subsidies, and solar PV is competitive for off-grid locations. If a lower cost
fuel such as pipeline gas were the competitive fuel, the advantage of the renewable technology
would be less.
Figure 1-14 compares renewable technologies to the Distillate LCL that results when distillate is
the only fuel available. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in
cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Distillate LCL, in blue, represents the benefit
of a renewable energy option. Its generation would displace generation at a cost along that line.
Where a renewable energy options line is below the blue line, there is a net benefit. It reduces
costs elsewhere that are more than its own costs. Where it is above the blue line, it represents a
net cost.
Most of the renewable technologies are shown at a range of capacity factors they might
reasonably achieve at a good site. Geothermal is also based on a good site, and is shown over
the entire capacity factor range because it is not limited by resource availability once the
resource has been defined. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 20 MW
LSD at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the
capacity factor. Biomass costs assume that biomass costs the same as export coal in the US.
Figure 1-14 shows that all but two of the renewable energy technologies have the potential, at a
good site, to be considerably less costly than distillate fueled power generation. Solar PV and
solar trough with six hour storage are above the Distillate LCL. If a lower cost fuel such as
pipeline gas were the competitive fuel, the advantage of the renewable technology would be less
and might disappear.
Figure 1-15 compares renewable technologies to the Fossil LCL for Barbados, which has the
lowest cost gas fuel of any of the countries studied. The renewable technologies offer much
smaller net benefits, small hydro and wind with storage are marginally economic, biomass is not
economic, and the technologies that were not economic before are less competitive.
1-23
80
Distillate LCL, US$/kW-yr

1.5 MW Wind Turbine
1.5 MW Wind w/Backup
Commercial PV 500 kW
20 MW Geothermal
Small Hydro
Biomass
Solar Trough 6 hr Storage
Distillate LCL, US cents/kWh
2,000
1,500
70
60
50
40
1,000
30
Cost, US cents/kWh
2,500
20
500
10
0
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Capacity Factor, %
Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options

1.5 MW Wind Turbine
1.5 MW Wind w/Backup
Solar Trough 6 hr Storage
Series6
Commercial PV 500 kW
20 MW Geothermal
Small Hydro
Biomass
1,500
1,000
60
50
40
30
20
500
Cost, US cents/kWh
2,000
10
0
0
0%
10%
20% 30%
40%
50%
60% 70%
80%
90%
Capacity Factor, %
Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options
1-24
1.5.4
CO2 Costs
If a tax or similar levy were attributed to each tonne of CO2 emissions, the cost of using fuels
would increase. This would open wider the economic window for technologies that produce
lower or no CO2 emissions. However, all the countries today primary fuel is distillate and/or
HFO, so the window is already quite wide. We investigated the impact if a cost of US$50/tonne
were attributed to CO2 emissions.
At US$50/tonne, the effective price of fuels would increase in a range from US$2.52 for
distillate to US$4.41 for coal, representing increases ranging from 15% for distillate to 91% for
the lowest cost coal for the Study islands.
In the bullets below we measure the impact of CO2 costs by how technology choices change
when it is applied.
Countries with small demand: The fuel prices are high even when coal fuels some of
the least-cost generation.
For Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines, the preferred
fuel would switch from coal to distillate.
The renewable energy resources that were economic before are now somewhat
more economic, and those that were not economic edge closer to being
competitive.
Countries with medium or high demand. The fuels are much less expensive than
distillate and therefore the displaced generation is lower in cost, narrowing the
economic window for alternatives.
For the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Jamaica North, incorporating CO2
costs in the analysis would probably eliminate coals advantage over LNG or
increase LNGs advantage over coal.
With no CO2 cost the renewables that were economic for the islands with small
demand are still economic, though in some cases only marginally so.
Incorporating CO2 costs makes renewables more competitive.
1.6
REGIONAL STRATEGIES
For all Study countries combined, costs including fuel savings from exports and interconnection
costs were:
US$31,985 million for the Base Case Scenario
US$29,424 million for the Fuel Scenario
US$29,415 million for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario
US$27,619 million for the Integrated Scenario
Table 1-4 presents cost differences among Scenarios by system as well as differences in Scenario
total costs. The Fuel Scenario and Interconnection/Renewable Scenarios both reduce costs by
about US$2.5 billion compared to the Base Case. The Integrated Scenario reduces costs by
1-25
about US$ 4.3 billion, showing that the Integrated Scenario captures most of the individual
benefits of each of the other two Scenarios.
Table 1-4 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (million US$)
Fuel
Scenario
Interconnection/
Renewable
Scenario
Integrated
Scenario
Antigua and Barbuda
12
20
31
Barbados
906
39
912
Dominica
604
10
Dominican Republic
444
350
721
Grenada
32
17
45
Haiti
433
76
476
Jamaica
500
138
628
St. Kitts
159
159
Nevis
1,135
1,135
St. Lucia
216
18
221
St. Vincent and Grenadines
18
14
29
Total
2,561
2,570
4,365
The costs of the interconnections and the fuel savings from the exports of geothermal power are
attributed to Dominica and Nevis. All numbers in Table 15-2 have positive values (except for
zeros for Dominica, St. Kitts, and Nevis for the Fuel Scenario), meaning that each Scenario and
each country in each Scenario provides cost savings compared to the Base Case.
1.7
COUNTRY SUMMARIES
Each country summary below presents paragraphs on:
Overview
Current and Forecast Load
Fossil Fuel Options
Renewable Generation Potential
Development Scenarios (development plans for the Base Case Scenario, the Fuel
Scenario, the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, and the Integrations Scenario)
Discussion of Country Results
1.7.1
Antigua and Barbuda
Overview: Antigua Public Utility Authority (APUA) is responsible for the power generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity in Antigua and Barbuda. APUA purchases most of
the power from Antigua Power Company (APC), a private company. Antigua and Barbuda
1-26
currently rely exclusively on diesel for power generation. Efforts are underway to convert some
of the diesel engines to HFO as an alternate fuel.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2009 peak demand is just over 50 MW, with net
generation of over 300 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 100 MW,
with net generation increasing to around 650 GWh (increase rate of 3.9% per year). Losses in the
transmission and distribution system are projected to decrease from over 30% in 2009 to around
10% by 2028.
Fossil Fuel Options: Imported coal was considered as an alternative fuel. Due to the location
and electricity demand on the island, the Study did not find natural gas to be an economically
viable fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Antigua
and Barbuda. A 2008 Energy Engineering Corp. report indicated that up to 400 MW of wind
power can be developed on the islands, primarily on Barbuda. Solar PV potential is estimated at
27 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on
current estimates.
Development Scenarios: All four Study Scenarios assumed that the committed system additions
of the Casada Gardens units will be installed during 2011-2013. With those unit additions,
system reserve margin requirements would be satisfied until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system
demand growth will require building additional generation units.
For the Base Case Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel
units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to
meet the required capacity.
For the Fuel Scenario, coal-fueled circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plants are marginally more
economic than distillate fueled medium speed diesels (MSD) plants; new unit additions are
assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make
the distillate-fueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units. Conventional (large-scale)
LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option. Though not studied in the same detail
as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option. By
2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. The
Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of
US$12 million compared to the Base Case Scenario.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed development of new diesel units as in the
Base Case Scenario, with the addition of 14 MW of new wind units. This assumes that sites with
good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical
interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of
wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$20 million compared to the Base Case
Scenario.
The Integrated Scenario assumed new generation units are 10 MW CFB units, as in the Fuel
Scenario, and the addition of 14 MW of new wind units, as in the Interconnection/Renewable
Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind
1-27
generation provides combined savings of US$31 million over the Base Case Scenario. The
Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios.
Adding coal-fueled CFB technology reduces net present worth costs by US$12 million compared
to the Base Case Scenario, with a cost advantage compared to distillate-fueled MSD technology
ranging from 2% at 55% capacity factor to 10% at 80% capacity factor. That cost advantage
disappears if costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions.
Conventional LNG is more costly than distillate, but mid-scale LNG might be a viable fuel
option, justifying a more detailed analysis.
Development of wind generation reduces net present worth costs by US$20 million compared to
the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good winds and low development costs can be
identified and acquired. With that assumption wind is much lower in cost than distillate fueled
generation. Small hydro and biomass would also be economic, if good sites can be identified.
The benefits are relatively unaffected by the choice of fuel for the countrys fossil units.
1.7.2
Barbados
Overview: Barbados Light and Power (BL&P), a private company, is responsible for power
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Barbados. Existing installed generation
of around 240 MW, mostly comprising of low and medium speed diesel units, substantially
exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable reserve margin. BL&P is looking to diversify
its fuel mix which is mostly dependent on imported oil products.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 peak demand was 164 MW, with net
generation of over 1,000 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to double to around 325 MW,
with net generation increasing to around 1,900 GWh (increase rate of 3.5% per year).
Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG or through the Eastern Caribbean Gas
Pipeline (ECGP), and imported coal were considered as alternative fuel options. Due to the
location and electricity demand on the island, the Study found natural gas delivered through
ECGP to be the most economically attractive fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: No studies on country-specific overall wind and solar
potential are available. We estimated Barbados wind potential to be at least 10 MW based on an
already approved project. Solar PV potential is estimated at 26 MW of installed capacity, but
bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates.
Development Scenarios: All four Scenarios assumed that the committed system additions of the
nine 16 MW Trent units will be installed. The first six units were added during 2011-2013 while
the next three units were added when required to match the load growth. All Trent unit additions
would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2025. During 2026-2028 the Barbados system
will require new capacity additions.
1-28
For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units
using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 40 MW (2 x 20 MW units) to meet the
required capacity.
For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario.
The difference is that in this scenario most existing and all new units are assumed to use natural
gas as a fuel, supplied through the ECGP. The Fuel Scenario shows that the introduction of
ECGP natural gas provides net present worth savings of US$906 million compared to the Base
Case Scenario..
For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed system additions are the same as for
the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this Scenario is the addition of 45 MW of new wind
units. This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and
acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario
shows that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$39
million compared to the Base Case Scenario.
For the Integrated Scenario, the availability of natural gas is assumed, as in the Fuel Scenario,
combined with the addition of 45 MW of new wind units, as in the Interconnection/Renewable
Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show net present worth savings of US$912 million
over the Base Scenario, only slightly more than for the Fuel Scenario.
Barbados has four fossil fuel options that offer significant economic benefits compared to
continued reliance on oil products: natural gas via the ECGP, LNG, CNG, and coal. By far the
most attractive is the ECGP option, which provides net present worth savings of $906 million
compared to the Base Case Scenario. Its cost per kWh compared to distillate fueled generation
ranges from less than half at 20% capacity factor to less than 40% at 80% capacity factor.
If the ECGP does not materialize, the other fuel options should be considered. They would offer
significant savings compared to distillate, though not as dramatic as ECGP gas offers.
Development of wind generation reduces Interconnection/Renewable Scenario net present worth
costs by US$39 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good
winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. However, when ECGP gas is
available, as is assumed in the Integrated Scenario, adding wind generation increases savings by
only US$6 million. Wind is only marginally economic, as would be small hydro if good sites
can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. This illustrates the high
dependence of wind generation savings on the assumed fuel supply option, and the possibility
that wind generation penetration might be limited to only a few of the best wind sites.
1.7.3
Dominica
Overview: Dominica Electricity Services Limited (DOMLEC) is a sole producer responsible for
the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Dominica. Existing installed
generation, comprising high and medium speed diesel units and hydro units, exceeds peak
1-29
demand by 35% providing a comfortable reserve margin. Dominica is looking to diversify its
fuel mix, which is mostly dependent on imported oil products.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys current peak demand is around 15 MW, with net
generation of around 90 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to 25 MW, with
net generation increasing to around 150 GWh (increase rate of 2.5% per year).
Fossil Fuel Options: Due to the low electricity demand on the island, the least-cost fuel is
distillate because the fixed costs associated with all other fuels produce higher unit costs in
US$/GJ.
Renewable Generation Potential: Based on the ongoing assessment of potential at the Watton
Waven field in central Dominica, and West Indies Powers exploration in the Soufriere area,
geothermal potential is estimated to be adequate to supply 100 MW of geothermal power plants.
Drilling of the first three slim (exploratory) wells is scheduled to start in June 2010 in the
Soufriere area near the southern coast. Solar PV potential is estimated at 45 MW of installed
capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates.
Dominica also has small-size hydro and wind potential.
Development Scenarios: Starting in 2012 Dominica will require new capacity additions.
For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units
required capacity. Dominica does not have a potentially less expensive fossil fuel option.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of a 20 MW geothermal unit in
2012 to satisfy local needs. It also assumes submarine cable electrical interconnections with
Martinique and Guadeloupe, and the addition of two 92.5 MW units in 2014 to support exports
to those two countries. The results show large benefits of geothermal development in this
Scenario, with net present worth savings of US$604 million compared with the Base Case
Scenario.
The Integrated Scenario assumed assumes the same geothermal additions as in the
Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The key is the assumed fuel savings due to energy exports
to Martinique and Guadeloupe. The Integrated Scenario assumes construction of the ECGP and
natural gas deliveries to those two countries, so fuel savings on Martinique and Guadeloupe are
reduced because the imports are replacing lower cost natural gas (rather than distillate) based
generation. The Integrated Scenario result shows combined savings of only US$10 million,
demonstrating that savings are highly dependent on the assumed fuel supply option for
Martinique and Guadeloupe. Savings of US$10 million is considerably less than the savings
from the much smaller supply to Dominica alone.
Discussion of Country Results:
Because its low demand means that no fossil fuel options appear economic compared to
distillate, geothermal development is particularly important for Dominica. It seems probable that
a geothermal resource at least large enough to serve Dominicas demand will be confirmed. This
would be the most important result from the countrys point of view, as it would insulate the
1-30
country from the high price of distillate, and the uncertainty associated with variation in that
price over time. It would also reduce CO2 emissions.
Considering the low cost of power of geothermal power, wind generation is only marginally
economic compared to geothermal for domestic consumption on Dominica. Small hydro also
would be marginally economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally
uneconomic.
Confirmation of a resource sufficient to serve exports to Martinique and/or Guadeloupe is less
certain. The benefits of such development are also less certain. Almost US$600 million in
savings when distillate is the displaced fuel disappear when ECGP gas is assumed to be the
displaced fuel. Martinique and Guadeloupe have another fossil fuel option, LNG, with lower
cost than distillate. In the Fuel Scenario, LNG would provide significant savings compared to
the Base Case Scenario, though less than the savings with ECGP gas. It is not clear how much
the savings would be in the Integrated Scenario, but they would be higher than US$10 million.
It is clear that more detailed analysis of the Martinique and Guadeloupe systems would be
required to determine the desirability of developing geothermal power on Dominica for export to
those countries. That will depend on the fuel supply (continuing with distillate, ECGP, LNG)
they select as well as factors such as costs and the number of units that could be converted to
natural gas.
1.7.4
Dominican Republic
Overview: Prior to 1997 all the generation, transmission, and distribution assets of the
Dominican Republic (DR) were owned by the state owned company CDE. In 1997 a
capitalization process divided the three entities and the stocks of the companies were sold t
private investors. Now the DR has eleven different private thermal power generating companies
and a government owned hydroelectric entity, Empresa de Generacin Hidroelctrica
Dominicana (EGEHID). AES Dominica, the largest thermal power generator, is owned by AES
an international utility company. Other generation companies are La Empresa Generadora de
Electricidad Haina (EGE Haina), Generadora Palamara La Vega (GPLV), La Compaa De
Electricidad De San Pedro De Macors (CESPM) and five smaller companies. There are three
private and one public distribution companies and a public owned transmission company.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 peak demand was 2,168 MW, with net
generation of over 11,600 GWh, making it by far the largest power market of all studied
countries. By 2028 peak demand is projected to double to over 4,400 MW, with net generation
increasing to around 23,750 GWh (increase rate of 3.4% per year).
Fossil Fuel Options: Today the DR has power plants using coal and natural gas derived from
LNG, but most of its existing generation uses HFO. Expanding the use of coal and LNG offers
the potential to reduce costs and were considered as alternative fuel options.
Renewable Generation Potential: The government enacted a law in 2007 defining goals for
future renewable energy development. The goal is to have 25% renewable energy by 2025.
About 350 MW of wind projects have already been approved. In addition, there is significant
additional wind potential based on provisional studies. There are also estimates of 2,899 MW of
1-31
solar PV projects, but these would not be economic based on current estimates. Construction is
under way, or contracts have been signed, for 356 MW of new hydro plants. In addition, several
hundred MW of new hydro projects are in different stages of development.
Development Scenarios: In 2010 and 2011, installation of already committed hydro and wind
resources will add enough new capacity to cover the short-term load growth in all Scenarios.
Starting in 2012 the Dominican Republic system will require new capacity additions.
For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 300 MW combined cycle units
using LNG, with a few additions of 50 MW GT units to cover peaking generation. Results of the
analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW) of CC units
and 100 MW of GT units.
For the Fuel Scenario, new additions are assumed to be coal based units. The first additions are
planned (Montecristi and Haltillo-Azua) units, followed by generic 300 MW conventional coal
units using imported coal. This Scenario again includes additions of 50 MW GT units to supply
peaking generation. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another
2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW) of coal units and 100 MW of GT units. The Fuel Scenario results show
that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of US$444 million compared to
the Base Case Scenario.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of renewable energy resources.
There is no electrical interconnection. Most assumed generation is the same as in the Base Case
Scenario, but the Renewable Scenario includes the addition of 540 MW of new wind units (30
MW each year starting in 2011). This Scenario does not include interconnection with Haiti,
which separate analysis determined not to be economic. The Interconnection/Renewable
Scenario shows potential savings of US$350 million from introduction of wind generation only.
The Integrated Scenario assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the
addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. This Scenario shows
combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show
savings of US$721 million or about 90% of the sum of savings from the other two Scenarios.
The Dominican Republic now uses a wider range of fuels than any other country, and has
significant renewable resource options. It can expand its use of coal and LNG while adding
wind and hydro. The Fuel Scenario results indicate that using coal instead of LNG (used in the
Base Case Scenario) provides savings of US$444 million. The cost advantage of coal compared
to LNG ranges from 1% at 45% capacity factor to 18% at 80% capacity factor, and disappears if
costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions.
As with Barbados, the relatively low fuel cost makes renewable generation economically less
attractive. Wind generation is only marginally economic. Small hydro would be marginally
economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic.
1-32
1.7.5
Grenada
Overview: Grenada Energy Services Ltd. (GRENLEC) is a private energy provider that owns all
the generation and transmission facilities in Grenada, Carriacou, and Petit Martinique.
GRENLECs installed generation, mostly low speed diesels, exceeds 2008 peak demand by
about 81%, providing a comfortable reserve margin. Most of the generating units were installed
after 2002 and are relatively efficient. The diversification of the fuel/energy mix and the use of
alternative energy sources are two critical strategic objectives.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys peak demand is around 30 MW, with net generation
of around 190 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase significantly to around 84
MW, with net generation increasing to around 530 GWh (increase rate of 5.3% per year).
viable fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Grenada.
Initial wind measurements and project installations are underway. Grenada is also encouraging
small photovoltaic installations. Solar PV potential is estimated at 21 MW of installed capacity,
but bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates. Grenadas
geothermal potential is estimated at 400 MW, but there appears to be no exploration under way
and no development planned.
Development Scenarios: Grenada will require new capacity addition starting in 2013.
using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover
projected load growth.
For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported
coal. Conventional (large-scale) LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option.
Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an
economically attractive option. By 2028 the system will need an additional 70 MW (7 x 10 MW
units) to cover projected load growth. The Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of
coal provides net present worth savings of US$32 million compared to the Base Case Scenario.
For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed new generation units are the same as
in the Base Case. The difference in this scenario is the addition of 12 MW of new wind units.
This assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and
acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results
show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$17
addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Integrated
Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind generation provides combined
1-33
savings of US$44 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show
savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios.
1.7.6
Haiti
Overview: Electricit de Haiti (Electricity of Haiti) has the monopoly for electricity generation,
transmission, and distribution in the country. EDH grid consists of five isolated areas, of which
the Metropolitan including Port au Prince is by far the largest, with 80% of total demand. Only
about 12% of the country is electrified. Generation, transmission, and distribution facilities are
old and need rehabilitation. Operational capacity of generating units is only about 155 MW.
About half of all demand may not be served due to load shedding.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 unconstrained peak demand was estimated at
215 MW, but due to load shedding net generation was only around 600 GWh. With the
assumption that the economic conditions will improve and generation resources will over time
catch up with demand, by 2028 unconstrained peak demand is projected to increase to around
570 MW with net generation increasing to around 2,800 GWh (increase rate of 5% per year for
peak demand and 7.9% for energy generation).
Fossil Fuel Options: LNG and imported coal were considered as alternative fuels. The analysis
found LNG to be the economically preferred fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Haiti. A
Study of wind at three sites was conducted with good results. Haiti also has untapped resources
of at least 50 MW in small hydro projects. Solar PV potential is estimated at 1,654 MW of
installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic based on current
estimates.
Development Scenarios: Haitis power system is already short of generation resources in 2009.
We calculated that the already committed resources and an additional 80 MW of low speed
diesel units (4 x 20 MW) will need to be built during 2009 just to meet the existing demand.
1-34
For the Base Case Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units
using distillate oil. Starting in 2010 the system will need another 20 MW (in some years 40 MW)
in new units each year to cover projected load growth. By 2028 the system will need to install a
total of 540 MW of diesel units.
The difference is that in this scenario all new units will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas
will be supplied starting in 2014 from a new LNG terminal. The Fuel Scenario results show that
the introduction of LNG provides net present worth savings of US$433 million compared to the
Base Scenario. Though not studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG
may also provide an economically attractive option.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed generation is the same as in the Base Case
Scenario, but includes the addition of 81 MW of new wind generation. This assumes that sites
with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. There is no electrical
interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show that the introduction of
wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$76 million compared to the Base Case
Scenario.
Scenario results show that including both LNG as a fuel and wind generation provides combined
savings of US$476 million over the Base Case Scenario. The results show that 55% of the wind
savings in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario appear in the Integrated Scenario.
The results of separate analysis which studied only interconnection and exports from Dominican
Republic to Haiti show, on a net present worth basis, system cost in Dominican Republic
increased by US$322 million when HFO fuels the exported generation while system cost in Haiti
decreased by US$556 million. The total savings are thus US$235 million. This was compared
with the net present worth costs of building and operating the transmission line calculated at
US$242 million. The total cost increases outweighed the potential benefits and therefore a
transmission interconnection was not included in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario or the
Integrated Scenario. Only if LNG fuels the exported generation, which seems unlikely, does the
interconnection become economically attractive.
The poor condition and inadequate amount of generation in Haiti make all near-term additions
highly cost effective until an adequate reserve margin is established.
LNG is much less costly than distillate, leading to the savings of US$433 million. Coal is only
slightly more expensive than LNG, and would also provide large savings compared to distillate,
but becomes significantly less economic when costs of US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2
emissions.
Development of wind generation in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario reduces net present
worth costs by US$76 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with
good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. In the Integrated
1-35
Scenario, because it is displacing lower cost LNG rather than distillate, wind is less attractive but
is still economic. Small hydro would also be economic, and biomass would be marginally
economic, if good sites can be identified.
The land-based interconnection with Dominican Republic appears to be not economic. The main
issue is the high cost of the fuel (HFO) assumed to supply the export generation. Because of its
length, the terrain, and the relatively low amount of power being transmitted, the interconnection
itself is costly despite being on land.
1.7.7
Jamaica
Overview: Jamaica Public Service (JPS) is the sole distributor of electricity in Jamaica. It is a
vertically integrated company involved with generation, transmission, and distribution of
electricity. It also buys power from four independent power producers in Jamaica. The
government has reorganized the energy department under the Ministry of Energy and Mining
(MEM). They set energy policy and have recently issued a draft of the new energy policy. The
main focus is on developing energy diversity, since currently 95% of power is generated by
petroleum products. The ministry has been having extensive negotiations with major users of
fuel, gas suppliers and foreign partners to help develop a natural gas industry in Jamaica.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 peak demand was 622 MW, with net
generation of over 4,100 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 1,500
MW, with net generation increasing to around 10,000 GWh (increase rate of 4.3% per year).
Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG, and imported coal were considered as
alternative fuel options.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for Jamaica.
Detailed engineering is under way to expand Wigdon Wind Farm by 18 MW. Jamaica also has
limited potential for small hydro and biomass development. The current resource plan includes
development of an estimated 20 MW municipal waste project in Kingston. Solar PV potential is
estimated at 650 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not be economic
based on current estimates.
Development Scenarios: During the next four years, until 2014, we assumed that the planned
resources, including the Kingston, Hunts Bay, Windalco, Jamalco, and Wigton units, will be
built to cover the load growth. If those resources are built, Jamaica will require new capacity
additions starting in 2015.
For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 100 MW conventional coal units
using imported coal. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another
1,100 MW (11 x 100 MW units) to cover projected load growth.
For the Fuel Scenario, starting in 2015 new additions are assumed to be 100 MW combined
cycle units using natural gas supplied from two new LNG terminals, one on the southern side of
the island and one on the northern. Natural gas will become available during 2014 and by 2014
about 450 MW in existing units are also assumed to be converted to use natural gas. Though not
studied in the same detail as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically
1-36
attractive option. The results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another
1,100 MW (11 x 100 MW units) to cover projected load growth. The Fuel Scenario results show
that the introduction of LNG provides net present worth savings of US$500 million compared to
the Base Case Scenario.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed system unit additions are the same as for the
Base Case Scenario. The difference is the addition of 219 MW of wind generation by 2028. This
assumes that sites with good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired.
There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results show
that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$138 million
compared to the Base Case Scenario.
Scenario results show that including both LNG as a fuel and wind generation provides combined
The Base Case Scenario assumes that the infrastructure to deliver and generate with coal will be
put in place. If this does not occur, the other Scenarios benefits would be much larger.
Coal-fueled generation is less costly than LNG, but only at mid to high capacity factors. LNG
has the advantage that in the Fuel Scenario it can displace HFO in existing plants as well as the
new coal generation added in the Base Case Scenario. Replacing new coal generation in the
Base Case Scenario with LNG in the Fuel Scenario, and displacing HFO use in existing plants,
leads to the savings of US$500 million. Coal becomes significantly less economic when costs of
US$50/tonne are attributed to CO2 emissions.
Development of wind generation in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario reduces net present
worth costs by US$138 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with
good winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. Wind is economic, as
would be small hydro if good sites can be identified. The benefits are relatively unaffected by
the choice of fuel for the countrys fossil units.
1.7.8
St. Kitts and Nevis
Overview: The two islands have distinct utility structures. The electricity service in St. Kitts is
provided by a department of the St. Kitts Government. All generation is by slow and medium
speed diesel units. A plan is underway to convert some of the units to HFO. The Nevis
Electricity Co. Ltd. is a stand-alone Government entity supplying power to Nevis. All of Nevis
generation is also by slow and medium speed diesel units.
Current and Forecast Load: Current peak demand for both islands is less than 40 MW, with net
generation of around 200 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to 85 MW, with
net generation increasing to around 430 GWh (increase rate of 3.6% per year, with rates of 2.9%
per year for St. Kitts and 5.2% per year for Nevis)
1-37
viable fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Nevis has significant geothermal resources estimated to
support development of 300 MW in geothermal power plants. Production drilling of two
production wells and one injector on Nevis is scheduled to begin June/July 2010, with the 10MW
Nevis plant due to be on line in the first half of 2011. A 30 MW plant on Nevis, to serve demand
on St. Kitts, is in late stages of planning. The islands also have potential to develop small 4-5
MW wind farms. Solar PV potential is estimated at 16 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power
development would not be economic based on current estimates.
Development Scenarios: Starting in 2012 St. Kitts will require new capacity additions. For the
Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using
distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 35 MW (7 x 5 MW units) to cover projected
load growth.
Starting in 2011 Nevis will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new
additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the
system will need another 25 MW (5 x 5 MW units) to cover projected load growth.
Neither St. Kitts nor Nevis has an alternative, potentially less expensive, fossil fuel option to be
used for the Fuel Scenario.
Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes that Nevis will be interconnected with St. Kitts by
2011 and the two 20 MW geothermal units at Nevis will supply 30 MW for St. Kitts and 10 MW
for Nevis. No new generation units will be built on St. Kitts. Additionally, this scenario assumes
two 200 MW geothermal units will be built on Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. A
submarine cable connecting Nevis and Puerto Rico is also assumed to be completed by 2014.
The St. Kitts results show net present worth savings of US$159 million compared with the Base
Scenario, as the result of interconnection and geothermal development on Nevis. These saving
are much higher than the increased costs of US$100 million on Nevis associated with serving St.
Kitts load. Interconnection of St. Kitts and Nevis and geothermal development of Nevis to serve
both islands is clearly a cost effective option. Further large potential benefits with net present
worth savings of over US$1 billion on Nevis are the result of additional geothermal
development, interconnection, and exports of energy to Puerto Rico.
The Integrated Scenario assumes the same interconnection with Nevis by 2011 and no new
generation units built on St. Kitts, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario.
Because their low demand means that no fossil fuel options appear economic compared to
distillate, geothermal development on Nevis is particularly important for St. Kitts and Nevis. It
seems highly probable that a geothermal resource of at least 40 MW will be developed, based on
exploratory well and signed contracts. This would be the most important result from the
countrys point of view, as it would insulate the country from the high price of distillate, and the
1-38
uncertainty associated with variation in that price over time. It would also reduce CO2
emissions.
Considering the low cost of power of geothermal power, wind generation is only marginally
economic compared to geothermal for domestic consumption on St. Kitts and Nevis. Small
hydro also would be marginally economic if good sites can be identified, but biomass would be
marginally uneconomic.
Development of a resource sufficient to serve exports to Puerto Rico is less certain, but West
Indies Power indicates that exploration data supports at least 300 MW. The very large benefits
associated with the development of 400 MW for export to Puerto Rico are based on the exports
displacing HFO in Puerto Rico, which seem reasonable because HFO is the main fuel today.
1.7.9
St. Lucia
Overview: St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd. (LUCELEC) is responsible for the power
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity on St. Lucia. Existing installed generation
of around 75 MW, comprising of diesel units, exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable
reserve margin. LUCELEC is looking to diversify its fuel mix, which is mostly dependent on
imported oil products. The utility has adequate tariffs, reasonable regulation, and a strong
financial position.
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 peak demand was 54 MW, with net generation
of over 350 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase around 115 MW, with net
generation increasing to around 650 GWh (increase rate of 3.2%).
Fossil Fuel Options: Natural gas, delivered as LNG or through the ECGP, and imported coal
were considered as alternative fuel options. Due to the location and electricity demand on the
island, the Study found natural gas delivered through the ECGP to be the most economical fuel
option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind is the most promising renewable resource for St. Lucia.
LUCELEC is pursuing a wind farm on land they already own and are starting measurement on
several promising sites. St. Lucia also has rooftop solar PV installations at many locations. Solar
PV potential is estimated at 36 MW of installed capacity, but bulk power development would not
be economic based on current estimates. There was significant geothermal exploration in the
1970s 1980s, but the wells did not produce much steam. There appears to be some geothermal
potential, but the rights to the resource for a long time were and may still be tied up with a
developer.
Development Scenarios: Starting in 2010 St. Lucia will require new capacity additions.
For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units
required capacity.
The difference is that in this scenario most existing and all new units will be using natural gas as
1-39
a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the ECGP. Fuel Scenario results show that the
introduction of ECGP gas provides net present worth savings of US$216 million compared to the
Base Case Scenario.
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes system additions are the same as for the Base
Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition by 2028 of 18 MW of wind generation.
acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario results
show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of US$18
addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Similar to the
Barbados results, the Integrated Scenario net present worth savings of US$221 million or only
US$5 million higher than the Fuels Scenario, showing that savings from wind generation are
much smaller when the assumed displaced fuel is low cost gas rather than high cost distillate.
St. Lucia has two fossil fuel options that offer significant economic benefits compared to
continued reliance on oil products: natural gas via the ECGP and coal. By far the more
attractive is the ECGP option, which in the Fuel Scenario provides net present worth savings of
$216 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. Its cost per kWh compared to distillate fueled
generation ranges from less than half at 20% capacity factor to less than 40% at 80% capacity
factor.
If the ECGP does not materialize, the coal option should be considered. It would offer
significant savings compared to distillate, though not as dramatic as ECGP gas offers. ECGP gas
could displace distillate in existing units as well as fuel new units.
Development of wind generation reduces Interconnection/Renewable Scenario net present worth
costs by US$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario, assuming that sites with good
winds and low development costs can be identified and acquired. However, when ECGP gas is
available, as is assumed in the Integrated Scenario, adding wind generation increases savings by
only US$5 million. Wind is only marginally economic, as would be small hydro if good sites
can be identified, but biomass would be marginally uneconomic. This illustrates the high
dependence of wind generation savings on the assumed fuel supply option, and the possibility
that wind generation penetration might be limited to only a few of the best wind sites.
1.7.10 St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Overview: St. Vincent Electricity Service Ltd. (Vinlec) is a state owned corporation responsible
for the power generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity on the islands. Existing
installed generation of around 58 MW, mostly comprising low and medium speed diesel and
small hydro units, exceeds peak demand and provides a comfortable reserve margin. The St.
Vincent Governments goal is to provide 20% of electricity from renewable resources. The
Canouan Island has generating capacity of 2.5 MW and remaining islands have much smaller
generating capacity.
1-40
Current and Forecast Load: The countrys 2008 peak demand was around 25 MW, with net
generation of around 150 GWh. By 2028 peak demand is projected to increase to around 95
MW, with net generation increasing to around 550 GWh (increase rate of 6.9% per year).
viable fuel option.
Renewable Generation Potential: Wind and expansion of small hydro are the most promising
renewable resources. The country announced its first 2 MW wind farm development, for
Canouan Island. There appears to be some geothermal potential, but the rights to the resource are
tied up with a developer. Solar PV potential is estimated at 23 MW of installed capacity, but
bulk power development would not be economic based on current estimates.
Development Scenarios: St. Vincent and Grenadines will require new capacity additions starting
in 2017.
using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover
projected load growth.
For the Fuel Scenario, coal-fueled circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plants are marginally more
economic than distillate fueled medium speed diesels (MSD) plants; new unit additions are
assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. CO2 costs of US$50/tonne would make
the distillate-fueled units more economic than the coal-fueled units. Conventional (large-scale)
LNG is more costly than either (distillate or coal) option. Though not studied in the same detail
as the other fuel options, mid-scale LNG may provide an economically attractive option. By
2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. The
Fuel Scenario results show that the introduction of coal provides net present worth savings of
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumed system additions are the same as for the Base
Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition of 14 MW by 2028 of wind generation.
acquired. There is no electrical interconnection. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario
results show that the introduction of wind generation provides net present worth savings of
Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind generation provides combined
1-41
1.8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the more detailed system analysis summarized in Table 1-4, we recommend the
projects included in the Integrated Scenario as a basis for future more detailed analysis and
development. The Integrated Scenario analysis showed that introducing new fuels and
developing geothermal-based power over interconnections provide the most benefits and both
could be part of the power system development. One exception was found to be the geothermal
development on Dominica for exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe. Benefits of this option are
large when distillate is the displaced fuel, but disappear when the ECGP is assumed to be built.
The focus of this Study was on the economics as determined by annual cost of power for
individual fuel supply and technology sets, and total net present value analysis for the four
Scenarios. There are financial, institutional, and other barriers to achieving the least-cost
economic solution, including:
The capital investments required to obtain the economic benefits may be beyond the
financing capability of some utilities
Uncertainty in the input parameters, especially fuel price forecasts, means any
course of action has a level of risk that may deter capital investment
Development of electrical interconnections or the ECGP will require agreement

among many parties, such as the utilities, private power producers, regulators, gas
suppliers, and governments. This makes development more difficult, timeconsuming, and costly.
Utilities or countries may be concerned about relying on another utility or country for
power or gas critical to its operations
Environmental and economic regulation may prevent some projects or fuel choices
from materializing
Some countries suffer from a combination of issues that unfortunately are common in
developing countries:
Inadequate tariff levels
High technical and non-technical losses
Deteriorating equipment
1-42
Load shedding
This Study provides a relatively high level overview of the fuels, generation technologies, and
interconnection projects considered. In some cases we have identified marginal net benefits, in
others multiple parties need to agree, in still others the utility might need to choose among
several attractive alternatives. Much more detailed project-specific work would need to be
completed to resolve uncertainties before proceeding with any major facility. Each of the main
subject areas merits further support, but we suggest priority for the following.
1) Gas Pipeline
The ECGP provides the most economic fuel for each island it reaches. The number of parties
potentially involved (ECGPC, gas suppliers, utilities, regulators, financial institutions) suggest
the need for support over a range of areas.
2) Geothermal Power Generation / Submarine Cable Projects
The Nevis St. Kitts link is highly economic and not technically challenging. The benefits of
the Dominica Martinique and Dominica Guadeloupe links are large when distillate is the
displace fuel but disappear or become much smaller when pipeline gas or other low-cost fuel is
available. In other words, the ECGP and Dominica links are competitors and may be mutually
exclusive. Other links (Nevis Puerto Rico, United States (Florida) Cuba also offer
potentially large benefits but have larger uncertainties.
3) Renewable Energy
The primary uncertainty with wind and geothermal power generation is identifying sites where
the resource is good and site development costs are not a barrier. The expected potential for both
wind and geothermal is large. Assisting in identifying such sites might be the most cost-effective
method of fostering development.
1-43

Electricity Gifs Strategy Final Report Summary PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electricity Gifs Strategy Final Report Summary PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Power of Experience

Caribbean Regional Electricity

Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ii

Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map............................................................................................ 1-3

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Antigua Power Company

Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map

Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study

Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study

Our approach included the following main steps:

Collect the foundation data needed to conduct the work

Evaluate submarine cable technology

Identify and evaluate submarine cable and land-based transmission interconnections

Develop scenarios that include a range of approaches to regional power generation,

Report on and present the results (such as in this report)

Table 1-1 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW)

Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh)

Levelized Fuel Price, US$/GJ

PROJECT AND TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

Screening analysis is an approach to comparing the costs of different technologies to determine

Annual cost is sum of:

Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-5 Other Options for Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 300 MW CC on LNG

Jamaica and Jamaica North: 50 MW GT on LNG for peaking duty, 20 MW LSD on

Barbados, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and St. Lucia: 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for

Figure 1-6 Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) Proposed Route

Sub-regional Electricity Markets

Nevis St. Kitts, 50 MW submarine cable capacity, 5 km submarine cable length,

Dominica Martinique, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related

Dominica Guadeloupe, 100 MW, 70 km, US$588/kW (interconnection and related

Nevis US Virgin Islands, 80 MVA, 320 km, US$3,541/kW (interconnection and

Figure 1-7 Dominica Interconnections

Figure 1-9 Saba St. Maarten Interconnection

Figure 1-10 Haiti Dominican Republic Interconnection

Figure 1-11 United States (Florida) Cuba Interconnection

Figure 1-12 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections

Figure 1-13 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative

Distillate LCL, US$/kW-yr

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options

Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options

US$31,985 million for the Base Case Scenario

US$29,424 million for the Fuel Scenario

US$29,415 million for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario

US$27,619 million for the Integrated Scenario

Antigua and Barbuda

St. Vincent and Grenadines

Each country summary below presents paragraphs on:

Current and Forecast Load

Fossil Fuel Options

Renewable Generation Potential

Discussion of Country Results

Antigua and Barbuda

St. Kitts and Nevis

Development of electrical interconnections or the ECGP will require agreement

You might also like