Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy, Final Report, March 2010

Public Disclosure Authorized
59485
The Power of Experience
Submitted to: World Bank
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report
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 Section 2 Introduction 2-1 2.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Study Team .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Section 3 Approach 3-1 3.1 Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Brief Description of Study Steps ................................................................................. 3-1 Section 4 Data 4-1 4.1 Data Collection Process ............................................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 Existing and Planned Generation, Summary of Transmission 5-1 5.1 Existing and Planned Generation Plants ...................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Existing Transmission Systems ................................................................................. 5-14 5.3 Description and Analysis of Power Generation Market ............................................ 5-14 Section 6 Load Forecast 6-1 6.1 Load Forecasting Approach ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Current Demand and Electricity Forecast by Country ................................................. 6-1 6.3 Regional Load Forecast ............................................................................................. 6-15 Section 7 Fuel Supply 7-1 7.1 Existing Fuel Supply .................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Potential Fuel Supply Options ..................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Fuel Storage Options.................................................................................................. 7-23 7.4 Fuel Prices and Projections ........................................................................................ 7-27 Section 8 Generation Technologies and Expansion Options 8-1 8.1 Regional Overview ...................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Fossil Fuel Technologies Costs and Performance .................................................... 8-4 8.3 Renewable Energy Technologies Power Plant Costs and Performance ................. 8-11 8.4 Renewable Technologies Resource Availability .................................................... 8-32 8.5 Upgrade and Retrofit of Existing Units ..................................................................... 8-38 8.6 Renewable Energy Projects ....................................................................................... 8-39 Section 9 Submarine Cables and Interconnection Options 9-1 9.1 Overview of Submarine Cables ................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Existing/Proposed Sub-regional Interconnection Options ......................................... 9-12 9.3 Northern Ring Interconnection .................................................................................. 9-36
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report i
Contents
Section 10 Study Analytical Approach 10-1 10.1 Overview of Analytical Procedures ........................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Screening Analysis Approach .................................................................................... 10-1 10.3 Approach for Developing Scenarios .......................................................................... 10-5 10.4 Power System Expansion Planning and Analysis Approach ..................................... 10-6 Section 11 Screening Analysis Results 11-1 11.1 Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Screening Curves for Individual Islands .................................................................... 11-5 11.3 The Impact of CO2 Costs ..................................................................................... 11-20 Section 12 Scenarios 12-1 12.1 Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................... 12-1 12.2 Fuel Scenario ............................................................................................................. 12-2 12.3 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario......................................................................... 12-2 12.4 Integrated Scenario .................................................................................................... 12-3 Section 13 Scenario Analysis Results 13-1 13.1 Base Case Scenario Summary ................................................................................... 13-2 13.2 Fuel Scenario ............................................................................................................. 13-6 13.3 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario......................................................................... 13-9 13.4 Integrated Scenario .................................................................................................. 13-13 Section 14 Study Results Evaluation 14-1 14.1 Comparison of Scenario Results ................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Recommended Development Scenario ...................................................................... 14-4 Section 15 Conclusions and Recommendations 15-1 15.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 15-6 Attachment A provides detailed scenario analysis results Attachment B provides a discussion of submarine power cable reliability Attachment C provides a discussion of submarine power cable repair procedures
ii
Contents
Table Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... viii 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 Table 5-1 Fuels, Fuel Types, and Where the Fuel Prices Apply ................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2 Existing Generating Units ........................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-3 Planned Generating Units ............................................................................................ 5-9 Table 5-4 Transmission System Frequency and Highest Voltages ........................................... 5-14 Table 6-1 Summary Load Forecast for Antigua and Barbuda ..................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2 Summary Load Forecast for Barbados ........................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3 Summary Load Forecast for Dominica ....................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-4 Summary Load Forecast for Dominican Republic ...................................................... 6-5 Table 6-5 Summary Load Forecast for Grenada.......................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-6 Summary Load Forecast for Haiti ............................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-7 Summary Load Forecast for Jamaica .......................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-8 Summary Load Forecast for St. Kitts .......................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-9 Summary Load Forecast for Nevis ............................................................................ 6-10 Table 6-10 Summary Load Forecast for St. Lucia ..................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-11 Summary Load Forecast for St. Vincent and Grenadines ....................................... 6-12 Table 6-12 Summary Load Forecast for Martinique ................................................................. 6-13 Table 6-13 Summary Load Forecast for Guadeloupe ................................................................ 6-14 Table 6-14 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW) ................................................................. 6-16 Table 6-15 Net Generation Forecast (GWh) .............................................................................. 6-17 Table 7-1 Fuels Used by Country ................................................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-2 Pipeline Transportation Costs All Islands Connected .............................................. 7-9 Table 7-3 Pipeline Transportation Costs St. Lucia Not Connected ........................................ 7-10 Table 7-4 Pipeline Transportation Costs St. Lucia and Guadeloupe Not Connected ............. 7-10 Table 7-5 Pipeline Transportation Costs Barbados is Only Island Connected ....................... 7-11 Table 7-6 Mid-scale LNG Comparison ..................................................................................... 7-17 Table 7-7 Regional Petroleum Consumption ............................................................................ 7-25 Table 7-8 Summary of Economic Analysis ............................................................................... 7-26 Table 7-9 Transportation Cost Parameters ................................................................................ 7-28 Table 7-10 EIA US Fuel Prices, $/GJ ........................................................................................ 7-30 Table 7-11 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ................................................... 7-30 Table 7-12 Yearly Prices for Fuels for Caribbean Power Plants ............................................... 7-31 Table 8-1 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Conventional Coal Plants .................... 8-5 Table 8-2 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for CFB Plants .......................................... 8-6 Table 8-3 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines .... 8-7 Table 8-4 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Combined Cycle Plants ...................... 8-9 Table 8-5 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Diesel Engines .................................. 8-10 Table 8-6 Wind Class and Corresponding Wind Speed and Wind Power ................................ 8-13 Table 8-7 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Wind Turbines .................................. 8-15
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report iii
Contents
Table 8-8 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Geothermal Plants ............................ 8-19 Table 8-9 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Small Hydro Plants ........................... 8-20 Table 8-10 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Solar Trough Plants ........................ 8-27 Table 8-11 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for PV Systems..................................... 8-30 Table 8-12 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Biomass and LFG Plants ................ 8-31 Table 8-13 Renewable Resource Estimate for the Caribbean Region ....................................... 8-36 Table 9-1 List of Some of the Worlds Major AC Submarine Cable Links ................................ 9-4 Table 9-2 List of Some of the Worlds Major DC Submarine Cable Links ................................ 9-6 Table 9-3 Submarine Cable Project Costs ................................................................................... 9-9 Table 9-4 Proposed Submarine Cable Interconnections ............................................................ 9-13 Table 9-5 Cost Comparison Nexans Estimates and Historical Formula................................. 9-15 Table 9-6 Basic Data and Cost Estimates for Submarine Cable Interconnections .................... 9-37 Table 11-1 Added Cost of Fuels Based on CO2 Cost of US$50/tonne ................................... 11-21 Table 11-2 Impact of CO2 Costs on Fuel Costs ...................................................................... 11-21 Table 13-1 Base Case Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................... 13-5 Table 13-2 Base Case Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................... 13-5 Table 13-3 Fuel Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................... 13-8 Table 13-4 Fuel Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)............................... 13-8 Table 13-5 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......................................................................................................................................... 13-11 Table 13-6 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......................................................................................................................................... 13-11 Table 13-7 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................................................................................................................................. 13-12 Table 13-8 Integrated Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... 13-15 Table 13-9 Integrated Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................... 13-15 Table 13-10 Integrated Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .......... 13-16 Table 14-1 Scenario NPV Cost Comparison (Million US$) ..................................................... 14-1 Table 14-2 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$) ................................................................................................................................... 14-2 Table 14-3 Investment Requirement, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario...................................... 14-5 Table 14-4 Production Cost Summary, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario................................... 14-6 Table 15-1 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 ................................................... 15-1 Table 15-1 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$) ................................................................................................................................... 15-6
iv
Contents
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 Figure 7-1 Coal Transportation Costs .......................................................................................... 7-5 Figure 7-2 LNG Transportation Costs ....................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-3 CNG Transportation Costs ....................................................................................... 7-22 Figure 8-1 Existing Generation Technologies ............................................................................. 8-1 Figure 8-2 Capital Cost Estimate for Power Projects in US ........................................................ 8-3 Figure 8-3 Wind Turbine Components ..................................................................................... 8-14 Figure 8-4 Output Profile Wind Speed vs. kW output for Gamesa G58 Turbine .................. 8-15 Figure 8-5 Flash Steam Geothermal Power Plant Schematic .................................................... 8-18 Figure 8-6 Parabolic Trough Collector Plant ............................................................................. 8-21 Figure 8-7 10 MW Solar 2 Project near Barstow, CA ............................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-8 Ausra and Sky Fuel CLFR Lay Outs ....................................................................... 8-24 Figure 8-9 Parabolic Dish with Stirling Engine ......................................................................... 8-25 Figure 8-10 Two Tank Thermal Storage System....................................................................... 8-26 Figure 8-11 Typical PV Solar Module....................................................................................... 8-29 Figure 8-12 Typical PV System Configuration ......................................................................... 8-29 Figure 8-13 Least Cost Line for Distillate Fuel ......................................................................... 8-42 Figure 8-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options ...................................................... 8-43 Figure 8-15 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis with No Geothermal .................. 8-47 Figure 8-16 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis vs. Geothermal ........................... 8-48 Figure 9-1 3-Core XLPE Submarine Cable ................................................................................. 9-2 Figure 9-2 Photograph of a Sample of the 525 kV Vancouver Island Cable .............................. 9-3 Figure 9-3 Transmission Cable System Selection Criteria for Various Cable Types and Capacities (Courtesy of Prysmian Cables and Systems). .................................................... 9-8 Figure 9-4 HV DC MI-IRC Cable ............................................................................................. 9-10 Figure 9-5 Correlation Between Cable Length and Cost (2009 $) ........................................... 9-11 Figure 9-6 Correlation between Cost per MW/MVA and Length ............................................. 9-14 Figure 9-7 Fossil Least Cost Line for St. Kitts vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection ............................................................................................................................................ 9-16 Figure 9-8 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique with No Geothermal.................................... 9-18
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report v
Contents
Figure 9-9 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW Each .................................................................... 9-19 Figure 9-10 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW Each ...................................................................... 9-20 Figure 9-11 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe with No Geothermal ................................ 9-21 Figure 9-12 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW ............................................................................................... 9-22 Figure 9-13 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW ................................................................................................. 9-23 Figure 9-14 HFO Steam Plant for Puerto Rico vs. Fossil Fuel Options for Florida and Interconnection at 400MW ................................................................................................ 9-24 Figure 9-15 Fossil Fuel Option for USVI vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection . 9-25 Figure 9-16 Fossil Fuel Option for Sint Maarten vs. Geothermal plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100MW ................................................................................................ 9-27 Figure 9-17 Fossil Fuel Option for Cuba vs. Fossil Plants / Submarine Interconnection at 400 MW .................................................................................................................................... 9-28 Figure 9-18 Fossil Fuel Option for Haiti vs. Fossil Plants / Land Interconnection at 130 MW 9-30 Figure 9-19 Dominica Interconnections .................................................................................... 9-31 Figure 9-20 Nevis Puerto Rico and Nevis US Virgin Islands Interconnections .................. 9-32 Figure 9-21 Saba St. Maarten Interconnection ....................................................................... 9-33 Figure 9-22 Haiti Dominican Republic Interconnection ........................................................ 9-34 Figure 9-23 United States (Florida) Cuba Interconnection..................................................... 9-35 Figure 9-24 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections .................................................................. 9-39 Figure 9-25 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative .......................................................... 9-40 Figure 10-1 Cost Representation for Screening Analysis Method ............................................ 10-2 Figure 10-2 Illustrative Development of Least Cost Line (LCL) .............................................. 10-3 Figure 10-3 Least Cost Line Plus Renewable Energy Resources .............................................. 10-4 Figure 11-1 Screening Curves for Distillate-fueled Technologies ............................................ 11-2 Figure 11-2 Distillate vs. HFO Cost Comparison...................................................................... 11-3 Figure 11-3 Screening Curves for Coal-fueled Technologies ................................................... 11-5 Figure 11-4 Fossil LCL and Wind for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines ......................................................................................................................... 11-6 Figure 11-5 Fossil LCL for Barbados ........................................................................................ 11-7 Figure 11-6 Other Options for Barbados ................................................................................... 11-8 Figure 11-7 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic ...................................................................... 11-9 Figure 11-8 Other Options for Dominican Republic ............................................................... 11-10 Figure 11-9 Fossil LCL for Guadeloupe .................................................................................. 11-11 Figure 11-10 Other Options for Guadeloupe ........................................................................... 11-12 Figure 11-11 Fossil LCL for Haiti ........................................................................................... 11-13 Figure 11-12 Other Options for Haiti ...................................................................................... 11-14 Figure 11-13 Fossil LCL for Jamaica ...................................................................................... 11-15 Figure 11-14 Other Options for Jamaica ................................................................................. 11-16 Figure 11-15 Fossil LCL for Martinique ................................................................................. 11-17 Figure 11-16 Other Options for Martinique............................................................................. 11-18 Figure 11-17 Fossil LCL for St. Lucia..................................................................................... 11-19 Figure 11-18 Other Options for St. Lucia ................................................................................ 11-20
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report vi
Contents
Figure 11-19 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands Using Only Distillate ........................................... 11-22 Figure 11-20 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Coal on Fossil LCL...................................... 11-23 Figure 11-21 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Gas on Fossil LCL ....................................... 11-25 Figure 11-22 CO2 Cost Impact on Country with Lowest Non-gas Fuel Prices ...................... 11-26
vii
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ABS AC ADO APC APUA ASME Aus BL&P BPD CC, CCGT CFB CHP CLFR CNG CO CO2 Cogen CSP CT DC DNV DOMLEC DR ECGP ECGPC EDF, EdF EDH, EdH EGS EHV EIA EIR EPR EPRI ESMAP ESP FGD Fin FSRU Ger GJ GP GRENLEC GT American Bureau of Shipping Alternating current Automotive diesel oil Antigua Power Company Antigua Public Utility Authority American Society of Mechanical Engineers Australia Barbados Light and Power Barrels per day Combined cycle gas turbine Circulating fluidized bed Combined heat and power Compact linear Fresnel reflector Compressed natural gas Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Cogeneration Concentrating solar power Combustion turbine Direct current Det Norske Veritas Dominica Electricity Services Limited Dominican Republic Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline Company Electricite de France Electricite d'Haiti Engineered geothermal systems Extra high voltage Energy Information Administration Environmental impact report Ethylene-propylene- rubber Electric Power Research Institute Energy Sector Management Assistance Program Electrostatic precipitator Flue gas desulfurization Finland Floating Storage and Re-gasification Units Germany Gigajoule Gas pipeline Grenada Energy Services Ltd. Gas turbine
viii
Contents
GWH, GWh HDR HFO HHV HPFF HRSG HTF HV Hz IBRD IC ICGPL IDA ISO JPS kcmil kg kJ km kV kW kWh LCL LFG LHV LNG LSD LUCELEC m MEM MI MI-IRC MMBTU MMscf MMscfd mm2 MOU MPa mph MSD Mt Muni MVA MW MWe Gigawatt-hour Hot dry rocks Heavy fuel oil Higher heating value High pressure fluid filled Heat recovery steam generator Heat transport fluid High voltage Hertz (cycles per second) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Internal combustion Intra Caribbean Gas Pipeline Limited International Development Association International Organization for Standardization Jamaica Public Service Thousand circular mils Kilogram Kilojoule Kilometer Kilovolt Kilowatt Kilowatt-hour Least cost line Landfill gas Lower heating value Liquefied natural gas Low speed diesel St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd. Meter Ministry of Energy and Mining (Jamaica) Mass-impregnated MI cable with and integral return conductor Million British Thermal Units Million standard cubic feet Million standard cubic feet per day Square millimeters Memorandum of understanding Megapascal (1 MPa = pressure about equal to 145 pounds/square inch) Miles per hour Medium speed diesel Metric ton Municipal Megavolt-ampere Megawatt Megawatts electric
ix
Contents
MWt NGC NL Nor NOx NPV NREL O&M PC PV ROC ROV SCFF SCGT SCR SEGS SNCR SOx SSD Swe TES TOR UK USA US DOE USVI V VINLEC VSC W WIPC XLP XLPE 3/c XLPE yr Megawatts thermal National Gas Company of Trinidad & Tobago Netherlands Norway Nitrogen oxide (NO or NO2) Net present value National Renewable Energy Laboratory Operations and maintenance Pulverized coal Photovoltaic Republic of China Remotely operated vehicle Self-contained, fluid-filled Simple cycle gas turbine Selective catalytic reduction Solar electric generating system Selective non-catalytic reduction Sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide Slow speed diesel Sweden Thermal energy storage Terms of Reference United Kingdom United States of America United States Department of Energy United States Virgin Islands Volt St. Vincent Electricity Service Ltd. Voltage source control Watt West Indies Power Company Special cross-linked polymeric insulated DC cables Cross-linked polyethylene 3-core XLPE cable (i.e., each of the three phases is in one of three separate conductors within a common armor) Year
Section 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
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, CNG, 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 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 heavy fuel oil (HFO) and were analyzed on a country-by-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)

Antigua Dominican and Barbados Dominica Grenada Republic Barbuda 54 57 60 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 80 82 85 87 90 92 95 98 101 170 176 182 188 195 201 208 216 223 231 239 247 256 265 274 284 294 304 314 325 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 2,353 2,447 2,544 2,640 2,727 2,803 2,896 2,992 3,091 3,194 3,300 3,409 3,522 3,638 3,758 3,882 4,010 4,143 4,280 4,421 31 33 34 36 38 40 42 45 47 50 52 55 58 61 64 68 72 75 80 84 St. Vincent and Martinique Guadeloupe Grenadines 27 28 30 32 35 37 40 42 45 48 52 55 59 63 68 72 77 83 88 94 242 247 255 263 272 281 290 297 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 378 387 250 256 263 269 276 284 291 298 305 313 321 329 337 346 354 363 372 381 391 400
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Haiti 226 237 249 261 274 288 303 318 334 350 368 386 405 426 447 469 493 517 543 570
Jamaica 680 707 736 767 799 832 867 904 943 983 1,026 1,071 1,116 1,165 1,214 1,267 1,322 1,379 1,439 1,502
St. Kitts 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 40 41 43 44 46 47 49 51 52 54 56
Nevis 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 29
St. Lucia 56 58 61 63 65 68 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 95 98 102 106 110 114
Total 4,142 4,302 4,472 4,643 4,808 4,965 5,143 5,324 5,512 5,708 5,911 6,121 6,339 6,565 6,798 7,041 7,293 7,555 7,827 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 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Antigua Dominican and Barbados Dominica Grenada Republic Barbuda 318 315 312 410 422 434 447 461 475 489 503 519 534 550 567 583 600 618 636 654 1,039 1,073 1,107 1,143 1,180 1,218 1,258 1,298 1,340 1,384 1,428 1,475 1,522 1,572 1,622 1,675 1,729 1,785 1,843 1,902 87 89 91 94 96 99 101 104 106 109 112 114 117 120 123 126 129 133 136 139 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 198 209 220 232 244 257 270 285 300 316 333 350 369 389 409 431 454 478 504 530 Haiti 660 726 799 878 966 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782 Jamaica 4,490 4,674 4,865 5,066 5,277 5,494 5,726 5,974 6,232 6,497 6,777 7,073 7,376 7,696 8,024 8,370 8,734 9,114 9,510 9,924 St. Kitts 161 166 171 175 180 186 191 196 202 208 214 220 226 233 239 246 253 261 268 276 Nevis 60 67 74 82 86 90 94 99 103 107 111 115 119 124 129 134 139 145 150 156 St. Lucia 345 356 367 378 390 402 415 428 442 455 470 484 500 515 531 548 565 583 601 620 St. Vincent and Martinique Guadeloupe Grenadines 156 167 178 191 204 218 233 249 266 284 304 325 348 372 397 425 454 485 519 555 1,575 1,620 1,672 1,727 1,783 1,840 1,900 1,938 1,978 2,018 2,058 2,100 2,142 2,186 2,230 2,275 2,321 2,368 2,416 2,465 1,663 1,720 1,775 1,832 1,888 1,947 2,003 2,060 2,117 2,174 2,233 2,284 2,337 2,390 2,445 2,501 2,559 2,618 2,679 2,741 Total 23,391 24,322 25,295 26,387 27,363 28,303 29,362 30,448 31,576 32,751 33,979 35,252 36,483 37,761 39,082 40,454 41,881 43,361 44,897 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%
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$22.45/GJ. Each country except Dominica has at least one lower cost fuel option, and many countries have more than one. Table 1-3 provides the comparative prices. Distillate, LNG, and pipeline gas can be compared directly because they can fuel the same generators. Coal fuels generators with higher capital costs and higher heat rates, which must be taken into account in comparing fuel options. The prices of all fuels except distillate vary from country to country because they include transportation costs that vary. Table 1-3 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 Fuels Selected in Addition to Coal and Distillate None Pipeline Gas Distillate only LNG None Pipeline Gas LNG LNG LNG Pipeline Gas None Pipeline Gas None Levelized Fuel Price, US$/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
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
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
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report 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 Selects lowest cost resources at each capacity factor, producing the least-cost line for that set of resources Isolated Countries / Islands
1.5.1
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.
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.
2,500
Annual Cost, $/kW-year
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic
Cost, US cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 50 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr 300 MW CC LNG US$/kW-yr 300 MW Conv Coal, US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
80 70 60
1-11
2,500
80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 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 Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh 70 Cost, US cents/kWh 60 50 40
2,000
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
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
2,500
80
2,000
1,500
50 40 30 20
1,000
500 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, % 0 90%
Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options
2,000
40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options
Cost, US cents/kWh
1,500
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 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 Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
60 50
Cost, US cents/kWh
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
70 60
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 Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Total 12 906 0 444 32 433 500 0 0 216 18 2,561 Interconnection/ Renewable Scenario 20 39 604 350 17 76 138 159 1,135 18 14 2,570 Integrated Scenario 31 912 10 721 45 476 628 159 1,135 221 29 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: 1.7.1 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 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
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. Discussion of Country Results 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. Discussion of Country Results 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 using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 15 MW (3 x 5 MW units) to meet the 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
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
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. Discussion of Country Results: 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). 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 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. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units 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 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. 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. 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. Discussion of Country Results 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 12% at 90% 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. 1.7.6 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. For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. 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. 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. The Integrated 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. Discussion of Country Results: 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
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
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. 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. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both LNG as a fuel and wind generation provides combined savings of US$628 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results: 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)
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: 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. Discussion of Country Results: 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 using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 80 MW (4 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 will be using natural gas as
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. 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$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. 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. 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. Discussion of Country Results: 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.
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). 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 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. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units 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 US$18 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. 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. 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$14 million compared to the Base Case Scenario. 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. The Integrated Scenario results show that including both coal as a fuel and wind generation provides combined savings of US$29 million over the Base Case Scenario. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. Discussion of Country Results 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 12% at 90% 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. 1.8 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
Section 2
2.1 BACKGROUND
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 countries of the Caribbean region face crucial energy challenges. Paramount among them is to manage their high dependence on oil (and oil products) that fuel their domestic economies, in particular the power sectors. Most countries power plants rely primarily or entirely on imported diesel and heavy fuel oil (HFO). Most have small and fragmented power systems and there are no existing interconnections. Some regional projects, such as the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP), have been proposed but not yet materialized. Customers in the Caribbean countries already face some of the highest electricity tariffs worldwide, and their governments are increasingly concerned about the environmental burden of the current power generation, especially in tourist-driven economies. There are alternatives to nearly exclusive use of diesel and heavy fuel oil for power generation. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and pipeline natural gas may be economically and financially viable. Agricultural wastes, coal, and petroleum coke may also be viable options for fueling power generation. Geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro power plants exist in the Caribbean today and expansion of those renewable energy options may be feasible. Finally, development of submarine cable electrical interconnections among the countries would enable them to share lower cost resources, provide mutual support, gain economies of scale in power plants and systems, and obtain the benefits of power pools generally. The World Bank identified an assessment of the possibilities for developing regional/subregional energy supply markets for power generation as an important component of energy security planning work by the individual countries in the Caribbean. Accordingly the Study focuses on scenarios in which two or more countries share resources or activities. The Study also emphasizes renewable energy resources, not necessarily shared among countries. In April 2009 the World Bank contracted with Nexant to conduct this Study. Nexant subcontracted with Power Delivery Consultants, Inc. for its expertise in submarine cables. Our main counterparts in the region are the Caribbean Electric Utility Service Corporation (CARILEC), in St. Lucia, and many of the electric utilities in the region. 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). These nine include: 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
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Interim Report 2-1
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 that might be part of a regional energy solution. In addition to the nine countries mentioned above, we visited or obtained significant data on Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Martinique; somewhat less on Guadeloupe; and cursory information on Puerto Rico, Sint Maarten, and Cuba. The Studys Terms of Reference (TOR) specify that the Study team prepare in sequence an Inception Report following initial field work, a Draft Final Report, and a Final Report. Nexant delivered the Inception Report on 5 June 2009.At the World Banks request, the Draft Final Report has been re-named the Interim Report, which was delivered on 30 November 2009. This Final Report is revised to include comments received from the World Bank and other reviewers. 2.2 STUDY TEAM
As specified in the TOR, the Study Team includes the following individuals and specialties. The Study Teams combined experience exceeds 175 person-years. Peter Hindley, Power Generation Expert and Team Leader, from Nexant Bruce Degen, Natural Gas Expert (CNG, LNG, pipeline, and other fuels), from Nexant Graham Lawson, Power Transmission/Submarine Interconnection Expert, from Power Delivery Consultants Babul Patel, Renewable Expert (hydro, solar, geothermal, wind), from Nexant Miljenko Bradaric, Financial/Economic Expert, from Nexant.
2-2
Section 3
3.1 APPROACH
Approach
Nexants approach addressed each of the major parts listed in the Studys TOR, which the World Bank had organized into six key elements. Nexant organized the work into six Activities covering these six key elements, plus an initial Activity (Data Collection) and an Activity covering deliverables (Reporting and Presentations). 3.2 3.2.1 Activity 1 Data Collection Activity 2 Description and Analysis of Current Power Generation Market Activity 3 Electricity Supply and Demand Analysis Activity 4 Pipeline Gas, LNG, CNG and Coal Activity 5 Renewable Energy (Hydro, Geothermal, Solar and Wind) Activity 6 Electricity Generation, Transmission and Interconnections Activity 7 Identification and Assessment of Viable Regional/sub-regional Energy Solutions Activity 8 Reporting and Presentations BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDY STEPS Activity 1 Data Collection
Section 4 provides more detail on the approach to data collection. 3.2.2 Activity 2 Description and Analysis of Current Power Generation Market
The focus of Activity 2 is on the current power generation market, including assessing the upgrading of existing units and assessing regional fuel storage facilities for existing units. The major components of a power generation market are demand, supply, and fuels. Section 6 covers current demand, describes our approach to forecasting future demand, and provides the results. The data collection process provided the basic data on existing and planned generation contained in Section 5, which also contains a more detailed summary description of the power generation market. Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply, fuel pricing, and fuel storage issues. Section 8 describes our approach to assessing the upgrade of existing units. 3.2.3 Activity 3 Electricity Supply and Demand Analysis Review data on historical demand and existing demand forecasts and prepare regional/sub-regional power demand analysis.
There are two elements to this Activity:
Review data on existing supply (generation) and plans for new generation and prepare regional/sub-regional power supply analysis
As noted above, Section 6 covers current demand, describes our approach to forecasting future demand, and provides the results. As noted above, the data collection process provided the basic data on existing and planned generation contained in Section 5. Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply, fuel pricing, and fuel storage issues. Section 8 describes generation technologies and generation expansion options. The screening analysis described in Section 11 provides an initial evaluation of technologies and fuels that might be part of long-term supply (generation expansion) plans. The scenario analysis described in Section 12 provides our approach to establishing long-term supply plans for four scenarios. 3.2.4 Activity 4 Pipeline Gas, LNG, CNG and Coal
Section 7 describes our approach to, and the results from, assessing fuel supply and fuel pricing for the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP), LNG, CNG, and coal. 3.2.5 Activity 5 Renewable Energy (Hydro, Geothermal, Solar and Wind) Assessment of renewable energy potential Assessment of relevant renewable technologies and their and costs Review and assessment of existing/proposed sub-regional renewable energy projects Identification of regional/sub-regional renewable energy solutions to meet future power demand.
Activity 5 has four main components:
Section 8 describes our approach and the results for each of the first three items. Section 12 describes our approach to scenario analysis, which addresses the fourth bullet. Sections 13 and 14 provide the results from the analysis. 3.2.6 Activity 6 Electricity Generation, Transmission and Interconnections Assessment of power generation applications and technologies Review and assessment of selected project analyses provided by regional utilities/organizations involving interconnections Review of submarine transmission cable technologies and costs and assessment of interconnections among islands
Activity 6 has three main components:
Section 8 provides our approach to, and results for, the first bullets assessment of fossil fuel as well as renewable technologies. All proposed projects involving interconnections included geothermal power generation and submarine cable interconnection. Section 9 describes our approach to, and results for, the second bullets review and assessment of those projects, which also provides the review of submarine cable technologies of the third bullet. One
3-2
interconnection (Haiti Dominican Republic) is neither a submarine cable nor proposed by a regional organization. Section 9 also provides our assessment of that interconnection. 3.2.7 Activity 7 Identification and Assessment of Viable Regional/sub-regional Energy Solutions Development of a regional/sub-regional energy supply plan using submarine cables Development of a regional/sub-regional energy supply plan emphasizing new fuels and renewable Provide more detailed technical advice on the most promising pipeline of the abovebulleted plans and provide project-specific advice on important issues
As per TOR, Activity 7 has three main components:
Section 12 describes our approach to scenario analysis, which addresses the first two bullets bullet. Section 13 provides the results from the analysis. Section 14 describes our approach to, and the results for, the third bullet. 3.2.8 Activity 8 Reporting and Presentations
Three reports and a presentation comprise the Studys deliverables. All reports will be delivered in electronic format only. An electronic file containing the presentation will also be delivered. The Inception Report was the first report and was delivered on June 5, 2009. The Interim Report, originally titled the Draft Final Report, was the second report and was delivered on November 30, 2009. This Final Report is the third report. It differs from the Interim Report primarily in addressing the comments received from the World Bank and other reviewers. A dissemination visit to deliver a Presentation covering the Study and its results to relevant governments and regional bodies is planned following the delivery of the Final Report.
3-3
Section 4
4.1 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
Data
Our work in each activity area was data-driven and relied on basic data. Data collection included the following main steps: The World Bank provided considerable information at the start of the Study Prepared and delivered data request for utilities, with a goal to acquire data on their generation and transmission systems, fuel, plans, etc. Visited each utility during the kick-off mission and later visits to collect and discuss data Followed up to fill holes in data Collected data from publicly available sources such as the Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Research Institute, utilities web sites, the United States Department of Energy, the National Energy Research Laboratory, etc. Contacted vendors for price and performance information Used information from previous Nexant studies and related work
The objective of the kick-off mission was to initiate the Study by visiting CARILEC headquarters in St. Lucia and utilities and other organizations in nine countries. The goals for the meetings were to have face-to-face discussions of the issues, and to collect whatever data was available at that time. Three Teams, each consisting of one representative from Nexant and one from the World Bank, conducted the Mission: Team A: Franz Gerner from the World Bank and Peter Hindley from Nexant visited St. Lucia, Martinique, and Dominica Team B: Michael Levitsky from the World Bank and Babul Patel from Nexant visited Antigua, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines Team C: Alan Townsend from the World Bank and Bruce Degan from Nexant visited Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Grenada
Before and as a part of arranging the kick-off mission meetings, the World Bank distributed a Questionnaire and Data Entry Template to request the data needed to conduct the Study. Attachment A provides those two documents. The focus of the Study is on the nine Caribbean International Development Association (IDA) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) countries, but will also address other relevant countries if they are part of a regional energy solution. Of the nine countries visited during the kick-off mission, six are IDA/IBRD countries with a combined population of 600,000; the three that are not are Martinique (a department of France), Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados. The three IDA/IBRD countries visited later are Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, all in the Greater Antilles, with a combined population of about
4-1
22,000,000 that dwarfs the 600,000 combined population of the other six, all in the Lesser Antilles. We also visited the Cayman Islands during a later trip. The Teams met with the electric utilities and many other relevant organizations. Attachment D summarizes the meetings, organizations, and people met in each country.
4-2
Section 5
5.1
Existing and Planned Generation, Summary of Transmission
EXISTING AND PLANNED GENERATION PLANTS
Table 5-2 lists existing generating units for which data was provided. Table 5-3 lists planned and other candidate units. Where data was missing, we filled in holes with representative values depending on the fuel, any de-ratings, age, and other factors. For the existing units, the column titled # of Identical Units means just that. For the planned and candidate units, a number greater than zero means the unit is committed. Committed projects are those projects not yet operational that are sufficiently far along in planning or construction that they are assumed to be built. This means that they are not subject to displacement by other planned or optional resources. If the number zero appears in that column, it means the unit is not committed, but one or more such units can be added to the generation expansion plan if necessary. The abbreviations used in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 have the following meanings: Abbreviations for Plant Technologies MSD - medium speed diesel LSD - slow speed diesel Wind ST - steam turbine CC - combined cycle GT - simple cycle gas turbine HY hydro Geo geothermal PV - solar photovoltaics CFB - circulating fluidized bed CvCoal - conventional coal Cogen - cogeneration, must-take Abbreviations of Fuel Types D Distillate H HFO R - Renewable (Hydro, Solar, Wind) G Geothermal C Coal N - Natural Gas L LNG DL - Distillate/Natural Gas HL - HFO/Natural Gas
5-1
Table 5-1 Fuels, Fuel Types, and Where the Fuel Prices Apply Name of Fuel Distillate HFO LNG Dom Rep LNG Haiti LNG Jam GP Barb GP Mart GP StL GP Guad Coal 10&20MW Coal 25MW Coal 25&50MW Coal 100&200MW Coal 200&500MW Geo Wind Solar Hydro Fuel Type D H L L L N N N N C C C C C G R R R Areas Where Prices Apply All Study Countries All Study Countries Dominican Republic Haiti Jamaica Barbados Martinique St. Lucia Guadeloupe Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Vincent and Grenadines St. Lucia Barbados, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique Jamaica Dominican Republic Geothermal for all Study Countries Wind for all Study Countries PV and CSP for all Study Countries Hydro for all Study Countries
5-2
Table 5-2 Existing Generating Units

Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Antigua and Barbuda - Existing APC (Pant) MSD 5.00 3.75 APC Blk Pine LSD 6.50 6.00 APC Blk Pine LSD 7.50 7.00 APC Blk Pine LSD 17.00 0.00 Baker MSD 5.10 4.00 APC Jt Vent MSD 17.00 17.00 Victor LSD 13.00 4.00 WIOC MSD 5.20 0.00 Aggreko Rental MSD 1.00 1.00 Barbuda MSD 3.60 3.60 Barbados - Existing Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Dominica - Existing Hydro three plants Thermal two plants Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must(MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) 15.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 12.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 14.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 0.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 4.00 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 17.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 8.00 Distillate D 8,500 5.0 0.00 Distillate D 15,000 20.0 13.00 Distillate D 10,000 6.0 7.20 Distillate D 9,000 5.0 90.20 << Total Existing Generation, MW 25.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 13.20 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 13.20 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 61.00 Distillate D 7,895 4.0 40.00 HFO H 12,000 6.0 86.00 Distillate D 12,000 6.0 238.40 << Total Existing Generation, MW 5.00 Hydro R 10.0 16.00 Distillate D 10,000 10.0 21.00 << Total Existing Generation, MW 35 40 40 30 35 30 40 50 40 35 15% 13% 13% 12% 15% 12% 15% 20% 15% 13% 10% 7% 7% 8% 10% 8% 10% 20% 10% 9% AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW)
# of Identical Units 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 13 2
LSD LSD LSD LSD ST GT
12.80 13.40 13.40 30.50 20.00 43.00
12.50 13.20 13.20 30.50 20.00 43.00
2 1 1 2 2 2
40 40 40 40 25 8
13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 5%
7% 7% 7% 7% 11% 5%
1982 1986 1990 2003 1976
HY MSD
7.60 4.00
5.00 4.00
1 4
70 40
10% 15%
5% 15%
50%
< Assumed
5-3
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Dominican Republic - Existing AES Dominica Andres CC 319.00 290.00 Itabo ST 128.00 128.00 Itabo ST 132.00 101.00 Los Mina GT 118.00 118.00 Itabo GT 34.50 34.50 Higuamo GT 34.50 0.00 Haina Haina ST 54.00 50.00 Haina ST 84.90 72.00 San Pedro ST 33.00 33.00 Puerto Plata ST 27.60 27.60 Puerto Plata ST 39.00 39.00 Haina GT 100.00 100.00 Barahona ST 53.60 45.60 Sultana DE LSD 17.00 11.33 CESPM CESPM. CC 100.00 100.00 San Felipe CC 185.00 185.00 GPLV Palamara LSD 107.00 107.00 La Vega LSD 87.50 87.50 IPPS CEPP LSD 18.70 16.50 CEPP LSD 58.10 50.00 Seaboard LSD 43.00 43.00 Seaboard LSD 73.30 73.30 Monte Rio LSD 100.00 100.00 Metaldom LSD 42.00 42.00 Laesa LSD 31.60 31.60 Maxon LSD 30.00 30.00 Falconbridge ST 66.00 12.00 EGEHID (State-owned hydro company) Reservoir Hydro HY 387.10 387.10 Non Reser Hydro HY 85.20 85.20
# of Identical Units
Capacity Heat Rate Plant Factor, %, O&M O&M Planned @ Max Current Main- Forced (for Hydro, Cost Capac for Cost Net Renew(US$ tenance Outage (US$ Thermal CapacRate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate Units ity Fuel Fuel run) (%) (%) yr) (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh)
AvailOverable Retirenight Year ment Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 $/kW) of year) year)
1 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1
290.00G Dom Rep 128.00 00&500MW 101.00 00&500MW 236.00G Dom Rep 34.50 Distillate 0.00 Distillate 100.00 HFO 72.00 HFO 33.00 HFO 27.60 HFO 39.00 HFO 100.00 Distillate 45.60 00&500MW 102.00 HFO 300.00 185.00 107.00 87.50 16.50 50.00 43.00 73.30 100.00 42.00 31.60 30.00 36.00 Distillate Distillate HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO Distillate HFO
L C C L D D H H H H H D C H D D H H H H H H H H H D H
8,139 11,642 11,642 13,252 12,857 12,857 12,721 12,000 12,721 12,721 12,721 11,803 12,857 8,219 7,826 9,677 8,858 8,918 9,618 9,618 9,254 8,592 8,372 8,996 12,000 10,087 12,483
3.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 20.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 3.0 4.0 2.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0
30 30 35 20 9 65 30 35 30 30 30 8 35 40 30 35 36 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 35 35 40 40
6% 11% 13% 5% 6% 20% 12% 13% 11% 11% 11% 5% 13% 15% 6% 7% 12% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 7% 7%
6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 20% 7% 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% 8% 12% 6% 7% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 7% 7% 37% 37%
2003 1984 1984 1996 1998 1998
2001
387.10 Hydro R 5.0 85.20 Hydro R 5.0 2,883 << Total Existing Generation, MW
5-4
Name Grenada - Existing Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park Haiti - Existing Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May nology (MW) Be Derated) LSD LSD LSD 5.50 8.00 8.00 5.50 8.00 8.00
# of Identical Units 3 2 2
Capacity Heat Rate Plant Factor, %, O&M O&M Planned @ Max Current Main- Forced (for Hydro, Cost Capac for Cost Net Renew(US$ tenance Outage (US$ Thermal CapacRate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate Units ity Fuel Fuel run) (%) (%) yr) (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) 16.50 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 16.00 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 16.00 Distillate D 9,000 11.0 48.50 << Total Existing Generation, MW 34.00 24.00 27.00 Distillate Distillate Hydro D D R 9,000 9,000 5.0 5.0 26 26 26 16% 16% 16% 9% 9% 9%
MSD MSD HY MSD MSD MSD HY
17.00 8.00 18.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00
8.50 4.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
4 6 3 20 10 18 4
40 40
15% 15%
10% 10% 30%
20.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 10.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 36.00 Distillate D 11,000 15.0 4.00 Hydro R 10.0 155.00 << Total Existing Generation, MW
40 40 40 80
15% 15% 15% 10%
12% 12% 12% 10%
^^ Assumed 30% cap factor
30% ^^ Assumed 30% cap factor
5-5
Name Jamaica - Existing JPS Owned Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue IPPS JEP Owned JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Alumina Producers Sugar Wigton
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May nology (MW) Be Derated)
Capacity Heat Rate Plant Factor, %, O&M O&M Planned @ Max Current Main- Forced (for Hydro, Cost Capac for Cost Net Renew(US$ tenance Outage (US$ Thermal CapacRate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate Units ity Fuel Fuel run) (%) (%) yr) (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh)
ST ST ST ST ST GT GT LSD GT GT GT CC
33.00 60.00 68.50 68.50 68.50 22.50 33.00 20.00 22.80 18.50 20.50 111.00
28.60 57.00 61.80 65.10 65.10 21.40 32.10 17.30 21.40 13.90 19.90 111.00
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 2 1
28.60 57.00 61.80 65.10 65.10 21.40 0.00 34.60 21.40 41.70 39.80 111.00
HFO HFO HFO HFO HFO Distillate Distillate HFO Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate
H H H H H D D H D D D D
13,433 13,433 13,433 13,433 13,433 14,754 14,754 9,626 14,400 16,744 13,333 8,845
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 6.0
30 30 30 30 30 9 9 40 9 15 9 16
11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 5% 5% 14% 5% 8% 5% 5%
6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 8% 5% 8% 5% 5%
1968 1970 1972 1973 2026 1976 1974 1993 2020 1985 1974 1990-92 2001-2002 2003
2014 2022 2024
MSD MSD LSD Cogen
Wind HY
9.30 12.50 30.00 11.00 150.00 23.50 20.00 23.00
9.20 12.40 30.00 11.00
8 4 2 1
7.00 20.40
1 1
73.60 HFO H 8,571 5.0 49.60 HFO H 8,571 5.0 60.00 HFO H 8,372 5.0 11.00 HFO H 9,499 15.0 0.00 5.0 0.00 7.00 Wind R 4.0 20.40 Hydro R 4.0 769.10 << Total Existing Generation, MW
40 40 40 25 40 35 40
14% 14% 14% 12% 14% 5% 6%
8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 9% 6%
2015 15%
1996 2006 1999
78%
< Based on 47.7 GWH
5-6
Name Martinique - Existing
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must(MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) 8000.0 200.00 Distillate D 8,000 4.0 23.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 86.00 Distillate D 7,800 5.0 8.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 40.00 Distillate D 11,900 6.0 4.50 Distillate D 8,300 15.0 Muni 4.00 O 14,400 8.0 40.00 Distillate D 11,100 6.0 Solar R 6.00 4.5 Wind R 1.00 2.3 412.50 << Total Existing Generation, MW 6.10 Distillate D 7,900 5.0 7.90 Distillate D 7,900 5.0 8.80 Distillate D 8,400 5.0 7.20 Distillate D 8,400 5.0 3.50 Distillate D 8,400 5.0 8.00 Distillate D 7,900 5.0 33.50 << Total Existing Generation, MW 1.84 Distillate D 8,800 10.0 4.40 Distillate D 8,600 8.0 5.00 Distillate D 8,600 8.0 2.70 Distillate D 8,600 8.0 13.94 << Total Existing Generation, MW 30 8 40 10 8 25 40 8 50 25 12% 5% 14% 6% 5% 12% 11% 5% 2% 4% 8% 5% 8% 6% 5% 7% 6% 5% 4% 8%
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) 20112013 1984-96 1993 1997-98 2010 1981 1990 16 GWH 1997 30 GWH 2002 2007 <EDF #Thru 2008 < EDF #Thru 2008
Bellefontaine MSD Bellefontaine GT Pointe de Carrieres LSD Pointe de Carrieres GT Pointe de Carrieres GT Cogen SARA 16 GWH/yr MV/UIOM 30 GWH/yr MW SIDEC/Galion GT Rooftop solar PV Ferme olienne du Wind St. Kitts - Existing Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units Nevis - Existing #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8
20.00 23.00 43.00 20.00 20.00 4.50 4.00 40.00 0.05 1.00
20.00 23.00 43.00 8.00 20.00 4.50 4.00 40.00 0.05 1.00
10 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 120 1
41% 86% 16% 18%
LSD LSD MSD MSD MSD LSD
6.10 7.90 4.40 3.60 3.50 4.00
6.10 7.90 4.40 3.60 3.50 4.00
1 1 2 2 1 2
35 35 35 35 35 35
13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
MSD MSD MSD MSD
0.92 2.20 2.50 2.70
0.92 2.20 2.50 2.70
2 2 2 1
45 40 40 40
15% 15% 15% 15%
10% 10% 10% 10%
1983, 1985 1989, 1997 1996, 2000 2003
5-7
Name St. Lucia - Existing Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Rooftop solar
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May nology (MW) Be Derated) MSD MSD MSD MSD PV 6.00 6.30 9.30 10.20 0.01 6.00 6.30 9.30 10.30 0.01
# of Identical Units 2 1 4 2 10
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units Rate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) (%) run) yr) (%) 12.00 6.30 37.20 20.60 Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate D D D D 8,500 8,500 8,300 8,300 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 35 35 35 35 50 13% 13% 13% 13% 2% 9% 9% 9% 9% 4% 16%
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) 1990 / NA 1994 / NA 1998 / NA 2007 / NA < EDF #Thru 2008
0.10 4.5 76.20 << Total Existing Generation, MW 12.00 Distillate D 8,300 5.0 2.50 Hydro 10.0 34.80 Distillate D 7,800 4.0 2.90 Distillate D 8,600 8.0 2.54 Distillate D 9,000 8.0 3.10 Distillate D 8,600 8.0 0.18 Distillate D 10,200 10.0 58.02 << Total Existing Generation, MW
St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Existing St. Vincent MSD 12.10 12.00 St. Vincent HY 3.67 2.50 Lowmans Bay LSD 17.40 17.40 Bequia MSD 2.90 2.90 Union Island MSD 1.27 1.27 Canouan MSD 3.10 3.10 Mayreay MSD 0.18 0.18
1 1 2 1 2 1 1
35 70 40 40 40 40 45
13% 10% 13% 15% 15% 15% 15%
9% 5% 7% 10% 10% 10% 10%
30%
Est
NA 1951 2005 1974 1994 2003
5-8
Table 5-3 Planned Generating Units

Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Antigua and Barbuda - New Casada Gardens MSD 5.00 5.00 10 MW MSD MSD 10.00 10.00 Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must(MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) 30.00 0.00 Distillate Distillate D D 8,000 7,800 3.6 3.4 29 28 12% 12% 8% 8% AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) 2011 2012 450 450
# of Identical Units 6 0
10 MW CFB Wind PV Barbados - New Trent Trent Trent Trent Trent 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind PV Dominica - New 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind PV
CFB Wind PV
10.00 1.50 0.50
10.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0
Coal 0.00 10&20MW C 10,300 2.9 0.00 Wind R N/A 2.3 R N/A 4.2 0.00 Solar 30.00 << Total Committed New Plants, MW 32.00 Distillate D 7,676 3.6 32.00 Distillate D 7,676 3.6 16.00 Distillate D 7,676 3.6 64.00 Distillate D 7,676 3.6 60.00 Distillate D 9,000 1.8 0.00 7,400 2.9 Distillate D 0.00 GP Barb N 7,400 2.9 0.00 Wind R N/A 2.3 0.00 Solar R N/A 4.2 204.00 << Total Committed New Plants, MW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 8,000 3.6 Distillate Geo G N/A 2.6 Geo G N/A 2.6 Wind R N/A 2.3 Solar R N/A 4.2 << Total Committed New Plants, MW
36 25 50
10% 4% 2%
10% 8% 4%
32% 15%
2013 2014 2014
2,550 1,250 5,200
LSD LSD LSD LSD CC LSD LSD Wind PV
16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
2 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 0
29 29 29 29 28 36 36 25 50
12% 12% 12% 12% 4% 12% 12% 4% 2%
8% 8% 8% 8% 4% 6% 6% 8% 4%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32% 15%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2012 2013 2015 2012 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014
450 450 450 450 1,050 480 480 1,250 5,200
MSD Geo Geo Wind PV
5.00 20.00 100.00 1.50 0.50
5.00 20.00 100.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0 0 0
29 73 68 25 50
12% 10% 10% 4% 2%
8% 10% 10% 8% 4%
80% 80% 32% 15%
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
450 2,800 2,604 1,250 5,200
5-9
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May Name nology (MW) Be Derated) Dominican Republic - New Pinalto HY 50.00 50.00 Palomino HY 100.00 100.00 Hatillo et al HY 17.00 17.00 Las Placetas HY 87.00 87.00 Arbonito HY 45.00 45.00 Hondo Valle et al HY 57.00 57.00 TBD HY 159.00 159.00 TBD HY 57.00 57.00 TBD HY 405.00 405.00 Montafongo,Bani Wind 50.00 50.00 El Norte Wind 50.00 50.00
# of Identical Units 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units Rate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) (%) run) yr) (%) 50.00 100.00 17.00 87.00 45.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Hydro R 3.2 Wind R 2.3 Wind R 2.3 Coal 200&500M W 0.00 C 9,103 1.9 Coal 200&500M W 0.00 C 9,103 1.9 LNG Dom 0.00 Rep N 10,500 4.4 LNG Dom 0.00 Rep D 7,600 1.5 Coal 200&500M 0.00 W N 9,103 1.9 0.00 Wind R N/A 2.3 4.2 0.00 Solar R N/A 456.00 << Total Committed New Plants, MW 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 25 25 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 33% 17% 83% 43% 32% 44% 28% 38% 24% 29% 29%
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) ? 2009 ? 2009 0 2010 2011 ? 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,250 1,250
Montecristi
ST
305.00
305.00
25
10%
5%
2014
2,000
Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT 300 MW CC
ST GT CC
305.00 50.00 300.00
305.00 50.00 300.00
0 0 0
25 15 24
10% 4% 4%
5% 4% 4%
2016 2014 2014
2,000 450 950
300 MW ConvCoal Wind PV
CvCoal 300.00 Wind 1.50 PV 0.50
300.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0
25 25 50
10% 4% 2%
5% 8% 4%
32% 15%
2014 2014 2014
2,000 1,250 5,200
5-10
Name Grenada - New 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind PV Haiti - New E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind PV Jamaica - New Kingston
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May nology (MW) Be Derated) MSD CFB Wind PV 10.00 10.00 1.50 0.50 10.00 10.00 1.50 0.50
# of Identical Units 0 0 0 0
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units Rate ables, Mustper per kW- Rate (MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) (%) run) yr) (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 7,800 Distillate Coal 10&20MW C 10,300 Wind R N/A Solar R N/A << Total New Plants, MW 3.4 2.9 2.3 4.2 28 36 25 50 12% 10% 4% 2% 8% 10% 8% 4%
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) 2014 2014 2014 2014 450 2,550 1,250 5,200
32% 15%
LSD HY LSD LSD Wind PV
30.00 15.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
30.00 15.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
1 2 0 0 0 0
30.00 Distillate D 7,800 2.9 30.00 N/A R 3.2 0.00 D 7,400 2.9 Distillate 0.00 LNG Haiti N 7,400 2.9 0.00 Wind R N/A 2.3 4.2 0.00 Solar R N/A 60.00 << Total Committed New Plants, MW 68.40 Distillate Coal 100&200M W Coal 100&200M W Distillate Wind D 7,692 2.9
36 32 36 36 25 50
12% 5% 12% 12% 4% 2%
6% 5% 6% 6% 8% 4%
30%
32% 15%
2010 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014
480 2,500 480 480 1,250 5,200
LSD
11.40
11.40
36
12%
6%
2010-11
480
Hunts Bay Petcoke
ST
120.00
120.00
120.00
10,909
2.0
27
10%
5%
2012
2,200
Windalco Jamalco Wigton 50 MW GT 100 MW CC 50 MW GT
Cogen Cogen Wind GT CC GT
60.00 85.00 2.00 50.00 100.00 50.00
60.00 85.00 2.00 50.00 100.00 50.00
2 1 9 0 0 0
120.00 85.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C D R
7,000 10,909 N/A
2.0 1.8 2.3
27 28 25 15 28 15
10% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
5% 4% 8% 4% 4% 4%
40% 40% 32%
Est 2011-201 Est 2012 0.00 2014 2014 2014 2014
2,200 1,050 1,250 450 1,050 450
100 MW ConvCoal Wind PV
CvCoal 100.00 Wind 1.50 PV 0.50
100.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0
D 10,500 4.4 LNG Jam D 7,893 1.8 LNG Jam D 10,500 4.4 Distillate Coal 100&200M 0.00 W C 9,224 2.0 2.3 0.00 Wind R N/A 4.2 0.00 Solar R N/A 411.40 << Total Committed New Plants, MW
27 25 50
10% 4% 2%
5% 8% 4%
32% 15%
2014 2014 2014
2,200 1,250 5,200
5-11
Name Martinique - New
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max Factor, %, O&M O&M Planned Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must(MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run)
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW)
SIDEC/Galion Rooftop solar Ferme olienne du Vauclin 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind PV St. Kitts - New 5 MW MSD Wind PV Nevis - New 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind PV
CFB PV Wind LSD LSD Wind PV
34.00 0.01 1.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
34.00 0.01 1.00 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
1 7200 39 0 0 0 0
Coal 34.00 25&50MW N/A 36.00 39.00 N/A
C R R
10,300
2.5 4.5 2.3
30 50 25 36 36 25 50
10% 2% 4% 12% 12% 4% 2%
10% 4% 8% 6% 6% 8% 4%
16% 21%
From existing From existing 2014 2014 2014 2014
2,000 5,800 1,250 480 480 1,250 5,200
0.00 D 7,400 2.9 Distillate 0.00 N 7,400 2.9 GP Mart 0.00 Wind R N/A 2.3 4.2 0.00 Solar R N/A 109.00 << Total Committed New Plants, MW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 8,000 3.6 Distillate 2.3 Wind R N/A 4.2 Solar R N/A << Total Committed New Plants, MW 8,000 3.6 Distillate D Geo G N/A 2.6 2.6 Geo G N/A 2.3 Wind R N/A 4.2 Solar R N/A << Total Committed New Plants, MW
32% 15%
MSD Wind PV
5.00 1.50 0.50
5.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0
29 25 50
12% 4% 2%
8% 8% 4%
32% 15%
2014 2014 2014
450 1,250 5,200
MSD Geo Geo Wind PV
5.00 20.00 100.00 1.50 0.50
5.00 20.00 100.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0 0 0
29 73 68 25 50
12% 10% 10% 4% 2%
8% 10% 10% 8% 4%
80% 80% 32% 15%
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
450 2,800 2,604 1,250 5,200
5-12
Name St. Lucia - New 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind PV
Unit Unit Name- Current Net plate Net Capacity, Tech- Capacity MW (May nology (MW) Be Derated) LSD LSD Wind PV 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50 20.00 20.00 1.50 0.50
# of Identical Units 0 0 0 0
Plant Heat Rate Capacity Current @ Max O&M O&M Planned Factor, %, Net Capac for Cost Cost Main- Forced (for Hydro, CapacThermal (US$ (US$ tenance Outage Renewity Fuel Fuel Units per per kW- Rate Rate ables, Must(MW) (Primary) Type (kJ/kWh) MWh) yr) (%) (%) run) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 7,400 2.9 Distillate N 7,400 2.9 GP StL 2.3 Wind R N/A Solar R N/A 4.2 << Total Committed New Plants, MW D 7,800 3.4 Distillate Coal 10&20MW C 10,300 2.9 Wind R N/A 2.3 4.2 Solar R N/A << Total Committed New Plants, MW 36 36 25 50 12% 12% 4% 2% 6% 6% 8% 4%
AvailRetireable Overment Year night Year if (begin- Capital any (end ning of Cost (2009 of year) year) $/kW) 2014 2014 2014 2014 480 480 1,250 5,200
32% 15%
St. Vincent and the Grenadines - New 10 MW MSD MSD 10.00 10 MW CFB Wind PV CFB Wind PV 10.00 1.50 0.50
10.00 10.00 1.50 0.50
0 0 0 0
28 36 25 50
12% 10% 4% 2%
8% 10% 8% 4%
2014 2014 2014 2014
450 2,550 1,250 5,200
32% 15%
5-13
5.2
EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
A review of the transmission systems in the various countries is not an important part of this Study. The frequency and highest voltage of the transmission systems, as shown in Table 5-4, are useful in estimating the costs of submarine cable installations. Table 5-4 Transmission System Frequency and Highest Voltages Country Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Guadeloupe Haiti Jamaica Martinique Puerto Rico St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago Frequency, Hertz 60 50 60 50 60 50 50 60 50 50 60 60 60 50 50 60 Highest Transmission Voltage, kV 69 69, one line built for 132 but operating at lower voltage 220 11 138 33 63 (assumed) 115 138 63 230 11 11 66 33 220
5.3
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF POWER GENERATION MARKET
The power generation market in the Caribbean consists nearly exclusively of regulated utilities selling power and energy to end-use customers. There are no existing interconnections and therefore no trade among countries. Some independent power producers (IPPs) exist and sell to the local utility and some customer-level PV installations also sell to the local utility. In some countries self-generation exists as an economic way to meet industrial demand or to supply power in the event of load shedding. Attachment E provides brief country summaries for all of the main Study countries. Table 5-2 and 5-3 summarize the power generation in each country and show the fuels used. The predominant form of generation is distillate-fueled diesel engines. The Dominican Republic and Jamaica have substantial capacity in HFO-fueled steam plants, and some HFO-fueled diesel
plants. There are a few distillate-fueled gas turbines and combined cycles, some hydro exists especially in the Dominican Republic, and there are small amounts of wind, solar PV, and other technologies. The Dominican Republic uses both coal and LNG as fuels, but relies mainly on HFO. Section 6 provides demand forecasts for each country and the study region as a whole. The region is forecast to grow at a rate of 3.6% per year (peak MW) and 3.7% per year (energy GWH) through 2028, leading to nearly doubling the 2009 values by 2028. Individual country growth rates range from 2.4% per year to 7.9% per year. The common critical challenge each country faces is dependence on high priced liquid fuels for most or all of its generation. The fundamental problem is lack of domestic resources, or at least currently developed domestic resources. Only Trinidad and Tobago has significant fossil fuel resources, both oil and natural gas. Section 7 discusses fuel and presents fuel price forecasts. The forecasts show no relief from high prices over the Study period, though current prices are lower than those in the recent past. If demand doubles by 2028 the problems associated with relying on high priced liquid fuels will increase in proportion. However, as the results presented in this report demonstrate, high prices for liquid fuels open an economic window of opportunity for other fuels and technologies. Natural gas delivered by pipeline, or as LNG, and coal provide less costly generation in many countries. Geothermal and wind are attractive wherever the combination of a good resource and available site can be found. Another technical issue is that the small demand in most of the Study countries means that high reserve margins must be maintained to provide satisfactory reliability. Increasing demand will mitigate this to some extent, as will interconnections, if they are developed. 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 Load shedding
Addressing these circumstances is probably the greatest challenge.
5-15
Section 6
6.1 LOAD FORECASTING APPROACH
Load Forecast
During the data collection process, we received at least some electricity demand data from all countries. In many cases the data was not complete or the load forecast did not cover the entire planning period. The Study team reviewed the available historical data and forecasts to assure that the forecasts reflect current estimate and the consistency with the recent demand growth. In the process, we made many adjustments and additions to create a complete set of load data needed for the analysis. This section presents available historical demand data and our electricity load forecasts for each country or isolated island. 6.2 6.2.1 CURRENT DEMAND AND ELECTRICITY FORECAST BY COUNTRY Antigua and Barbuda
Table 6-1 presents historical loads for the years 2007 and 2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Antigua and Barbuda. The load data is based on Antigua Public Utility Authority (APUA) recent annual and planning documents. Peak demand growth is forecast at around 3.3% per year during 2009-2023. T&D losses are projected to decrease significantly from 38% in 2007 to around 10% after 2011. We extended the forecast until 2028 using the growth rate for the last year of the APUA forecast. We also kept the same loss rate after 2011.
6-1
Table 6-1 Summary Load Forecast for Antigua and Barbuda

Net Generation, Customer load, Peak Demand, System T&D GWH GWH MW Losses, % of GWH Historical 318.2 196.1 51.4 38% 317.0 221.9 52.9 30% Forecast 318.3 254.7 54.4 20% 314.6 267.4 57.1 15% 312.0 280.8 60.0 10% 409.6 368.6 63.0 10% 421.9 379.7 64.9 10% 434.3 390.9 66.8 10% 447.3 402.6 68.8 10% 460.9 414.8 70.9 10% 474.6 427.1 73.0 10% 488.9 440.0 75.2 10% 503.2 452.9 77.4 10% 518.8 466.9 79.8 10% 534.4 481.0 82.2 10% 550.0 495.0 84.6 10% 566.6 510.0 87.2 10% 583.2 524.9 89.7 10% 600.2 540.2 92.3 10% 617.7 556.0 95.0 10% 635.8 572.2 97.8 10% 654.3 588.9 100.6 10% Load Factor 70.7% 68.4% 66.8% 62.9% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4%
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-2
6.2.2
Barbados
Table 6-2 presents historical loads for 2004-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Barbados. The historical load data is based on Barbados Light and Power annual reports. Load growth is forecast at 3.2% for energy and 3.5% for peak load following the last 4 years trend. T&D losses are projected to remain at 6.3%, recorded in 2008. Table 6-2 Summary Load Forecast for Barbados
Year Net Generation, Customer load, Peak Demand, System T&D Load GWH GWH MW Losses, % of GWH Factor Historical 896 834 143 7.0% 71.6% 953 888 154 6.9% 70.7% 976 906 157 7.2% 71.0% 1003 944 162 5.9% 70.5% 1011 947 164 6.3% 70.3% Forecast 1039 977 170 6.3% 69.9% 1073 1009 176 6.3% 69.7% 1107 1042 182 6.3% 69.6% 1143 1075 188 6.3% 69.4% 1180 1110 195 6.3% 69.2% 1218 1146 201 6.3% 69.0% 1258 1183 208 6.3% 68.9% 1298 1221 216 6.3% 68.7% 1340 1261 223 6.3% 68.5% 1384 1302 231 6.3% 68.4% 1428 1344 239 6.3% 68.2% 1475 1387 247 6.3% 68.0% 1522 1432 256 6.3% 67.9% 1572 1478 265 6.3% 67.7% 1622 1526 274 6.3% 67.6% 1675 1576 284 6.3% 67.4% 1729 1627 294 6.3% 67.2% 1785 1679 304 6.3% 67.1% 1843 1733 314 6.3% 66.9% 1902 1789 325 6.3% 66.7%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-3
6.2.3
Dominica
Table 6-3 presents historical loads for 2004-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Dominica. Load growth is forecast at 2.5% for energy and 2.7% for peak load following the last 4 years trend. T&D losses are projected to slightly decrease to 11% by 2028. The resulting load factor is also projected to decrease to 66% by 2028. Table 6-3 Summary Load Forecast for Dominica
Gross Net Customer Peak Generation, Generation, Load, Demand, System T&D Losses, GWH GWH GWH MW % of GWH Historical 14.5% technical and 79.2 76.9 66.4 13.2 non-technical 17.3% technical and 83.7 81.1 67.8 14.4 non-technical 15.5% technical and 85.4 82.9 69.6 14.5 non-technical 14.1% technical and 86.4 83.8 71.4 14.5 non-technical technical and 0.7% 87.5 84.9 73.7 14.7 own use Forecast 89.7 87.0 75.6 15.1 13.1% 92.0 89.2 77.6 15.5 12.9% 94.3 91.4 79.7 15.9 12.8% 96.6 93.7 81.8 16.3 12.7% 99.1 96.1 84.0 16.7 12.6% 101.5 98.5 86.2 17.2 12.5% 104.1 101.0 88.5 17.6 12.4% 106.7 103.5 90.8 18.1 12.3% 109.4 106.1 93.2 18.6 12.2% 112.1 108.8 95.7 19.1 12.1% 115.0 111.5 98.2 19.6 12.0% 117.9 114.3 100.8 20.1 11.8% 120.8 117.2 103.4 20.7 11.7% 123.9 120.1 106.2 21.2 11.6% 127.0 123.2 109.0 21.8 11.5% 130.2 126.2 111.9 22.4 11.4% 133.4 129.4 114.8 23.0 11.3% 136.8 132.7 117.8 23.6 11.2% 140.2 136.0 121.0 24.2 11.1% 143.7 139.4 124.2 24.9 11.0%
Year
Load Factor
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
68.6% 66.5% 67.4% 68.0% 68.1% 68.0% 67.9% 67.8% 67.7% 67.6% 67.5% 67.4% 67.3% 67.2% 67.1% 66.9% 66.8% 66.7% 66.6% 66.5% 66.4% 66.3% 66.2% 66.1% 66.0%
6-4
6.2.4
Dominican Republic
Table 6-4 presents historical loads for 2003-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Dominican Republic. Load growth is forecast at 3.4% for energy and peak load following the last 4 years trend. For developing the demand forecast we used the 2009- 2002 low scenario peak demand numbers from the 2006-2020 generation planning study. This demand forecast is consistent with the recent peak demand growth. The GWH net generation forecast was developed using the 2008 actual generation and load factor values. Forecast generation values are similar to the generation numbers from the National Energy Commission 2008 forecast. Table 6-4 Summary Load Forecast for Dominican Republic
Year Net Generation, Peak Demand, GWH MW Historical 10,396 8,868 9,823 10,709 11,180 11,644 Forecast 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 1,934 2,115 1,761 2,083 2,100 2,168 2,353 2,447 2,544 2,640 2,727 2,803 2,896 2,992 3,091 3,194 3,300 3,409 3,522 3,638 3,758 3,882 4,010 4,143 4,280 4,421 Load Factor 61.4% 47.9% 63.7% 58.7% 60.8% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-5
6.2.5
Grenada
Table 6-5 presents partial historical loads for 2004-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Grenada. The historical load data is based on GRENLEC annual reports. Load growth is forecast at 5.3% for energy and 5.4% for peak load following the increase from 2007 to 2008. T&D losses are projected to remain at the 9.1% recorded in 2008. Table 6-5 Summary Load Forecast for Grenada
Year Net Generation, Customer load, Peak Demand, System T&D GWH GWH MW Losses, % of GWH 135.9 147.3 167.2 178.7 189.8 198.2 208.8 219.9 231.5 243.9 256.8 270.5 284.8 300.0 315.9 332.7 350.4 369.0 388.6 409.3 431.1 454.0 478.1 503.5 530.3 Historical 125.5 131.6 151 165.2 172.5 Forecast 181.7 191.3 201.5 212.2 223.5 235.4 247.9 261.0 274.9 289.5 304.9 321.1 338.2 356.2 375.1 395.0 416.0 438.2 461.4 486.0 7.7% 10.7% 9.7% 7.6% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% Load Factor
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
27.89 29.39 31.0 32.6 34.4 36.2 38.2 40.2 42.4 44.7 47.1 49.6 52.3 55.1 58.1 61.2 64.5 68.0 71.6 75.5 79.5 83.8
73.1% 73.7% 73.1% 73.0% 73.0% 72.9% 72.9% 72.8% 72.8% 72.8% 72.7% 72.7% 72.6% 72.6% 72.5% 72.5% 72.5% 72.4% 72.4% 72.3% 72.3% 72.2%
6-6
6.2.6
Haiti
Table 6-6 presents historical loads for 2001-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Haiti. The historical load data is based on partial actual and interpolated values. Net generation in GWH is based on several years of actual generation data, while the peak demand is estimated as the unconstrained value (i.e., taking into account estimated load shedding and increasing demand accordingly). The relatively high portion of suppressed demand resulted in a very low load factor. Unconstrained peak demand growth is forecast at 5% per year during 2009-2028 based on our discussions with EDH. Generation forecast is estimated to grow at a higher 10% rate to account for the current suppressed demand. After 2020, when generation is forecast to be able to supply most of the suppressed demand, both peak demand and net generation in GWH are forecast to grow at the same 5% rate. T&D losses, including a very high portion of non-technical losses, are projected to decrease from close to 50% to about 29% by 2028. Table 6-6 Summary Load Forecast for Haiti
Year Net Generation, (actual) GWH 602 550 538 527 520 549 579 600 (est.) 660 726 799 878 966 1063 1169 1286 1415 1556 1712 1883 1977 2076 2180 2289 2403 2523 2650 2782 Customer Peak Demand, Losses, (Actual load, (est.) (unconstrained) incl. non-technical) GWH MW % of GWH Historical 282 150 53.2% 271 152 50.8% 247 154 54.0% 248 157 53.0% 250 161 52.0% 269 177 51.0% 290 195 50.0% 306 49.0% 215 (est.) Forecast 343 226 48.0% 385 237 47.0% 432 249 46.0% 483 261 45.0% 542 274 44.0% 606 288 43.0% 679 303 42.0% 759 41.0% 318 849 334 40.0% 950 350 39.0% 1062 368 38.0% 1187 386 37.0% 1266 405 36.0% 1350 426 35.0% 1440 447 34.0% 1534 469 33.0% 1635 493 32.0% 1742 517 31.0% 1856 543 30.0% 1976 29.0% 570 Load Factor
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
45.8% 41.3% 39.8% 38.3% 36.8% 35.3% 33.8% 31.9% 33.4% 35.0% 36.6% 38.4% 40.2% 42.1% 44.1% 46.2% 48.4% 50.7% 53.1% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7% 55.7%
6-7
6.2.7
Jamaica
Table 6-7 presents partial historical loads for 2004-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Jamaica. The historical load data is based on JPS annual reports. The forecast is based on the Evaluation of Generation Expansion Options and Tariff Impact Assessment Study done by the Office of Utilities Regulation in 2007. Load growth is forecast at 4.3% for both energy and peak load. T&D losses are projected to be reduced from a high 23% in 2008 to about 13% in 2028. Table 6-7 Summary Load Forecast for Jamaica
Year Net Generation, Customer load, Peak Demand, System T&D GWH GWH MW Losses, % of GWH Historical 3,717 3,000 605 19.3% 3,878 3,055 616 21.2% 4,046 3,121 626 22.9% 4,079 3,131 629 23.2% 4,123 3,179 622 22.9% Forecast 4,490 3,485 680 22.4% 4,674 3,650 707 21.9% 4,865 3,824 736 21.4% 5,066 4,008 767 20.9% 5,277 4,201 799 20.4% 5,494 4,401 832 19.9% 5,726 4,616 867 19.4% 5,974 4,845 904 18.9% 6,232 5,085 943 18.4% 6,497 5,334 983 17.9% 6,777 5,598 1,026 17.4% 7,073 5,878 1,071 16.9% 7,376 6,167 1,116 16.4% 7,696 6,473 1,165 15.9% 8,024 6,789 1,214 15.4% 8,370 7,123 1,267 14.9% 8,734 7,476 1,322 14.4% 9,114 7,847 1,379 13.9% 9,510 8,236 1,439 13.4% 9,924 8,644 1,502 12.9% Load Factor 70.2% 71.9% 73.8% 74.0% 75.7% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4% 75.4%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-8
6.2.8
St. Kitts and Nevis
Table 6-8 presents partial historical loads for 2005-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for St. Kitts. Table 6-9 presents partial historical loads for 2008 and forecast until the year 2028 for Nevis. The historical load data is based on the St. Kitts Electricity Department 2009 report and the Utrecht University pre-feasibility study of electrical interconnection for St. Kitts and Nevis. Load growth for St. Kitts is forecast at 2.9% for energy and 3.5% for peak load following the last 4 years trend. Table 6-8 Summary Load Forecast for St. Kitts
Year Net Generation, Peak Demand, GWH MW Historical 123.7 22.5 130.9 23.9 141.2 25.3 150.9 26.8 Forecast 161.2 29.0 165.8 30.0 170.6 31.1 175.4 32.2 180.5 33.3 185.7 34.5 191.0 35.7 196.5 37.0 202.1 38.3 207.9 39.6 213.9 41.0 220.0 42.5 226.3 44.0 232.8 45.6 239.5 47.2 246.4 48.8 253.4 50.6 260.7 52.4 268.2 54.2 275.9 56.1 Load Factor 62.8% 62.6% 63.7% 64.2% 63.4% 63.0% 62.6% 62.2% 61.8% 61.4% 61.0% 60.6% 60.2% 59.9% 59.5% 59.1% 58.7% 58.3% 58.0% 57.6% 57.2% 56.8% 56.5% 56.1%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-9
Load growth for Nevis is forecast to increase at a rate of 11.2% until 2012, 4.6% between 2012 and 2016, and 3.9% until 2020. After 2020 the forecast was extended using the growth rates experienced from 2019 to 2020. The resulting 2009-2028 growth rate is calculated at 5.9%. Table 6-9 Summary Load Forecast for Nevis
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Net Generation, Peak Demand, GWH MW Historical 54.0 9.0 Forecast 60.0 9.5 66.7 10.1 74.2 10.7 82.5 11.3 86.3 12.0 90.2 12.7 94.3 13.5 98.7 14.3 102.5 15.1 106.5 16.0 110.6 17.0 115.0 18.0 119.4 19.1 124.1 20.2 128.9 21.4 133.9 22.7 139.2 24.0 144.6 25.5 150.2 27.0 156.1 28.6 Load Factor 68.5% 71.9% 75.4% 79.1% 83.0% 82.0% 80.9% 79.9% 78.8% 77.3% 75.8% 74.3% 72.9% 71.5% 70.1% 68.8% 67.4% 66.1% 64.8% 63.6% 62.4%
6-10
6.2.9
St. Lucia
Table 6-10 presents historical loads for 1999-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2018 for St. Lucia. The historical load data is based on the response on our questionnaire by LUCELEC. Using historical data, we forecast load growth at 3.2% for energy and 3.8% for peak load following the last 4 years trend. T&D losses are projected to decline to 9.8% by 2028. Table 6-10 Summary Load Forecast for St. Lucia
Gross Net Customer Generation, Generation, Load, GWH GWH GWH 256.2 275.7 286.5 285.7 299.0 308.5 321.6 330.8 345.7 352.3 359.4 370.7 382.3 394.3 406.7 419.4 432.6 446.1 460.1 474.6 489.4 504.8 520.6 536.9 553.8 571.2 589.1 607.5 626.6 646.2 Historical 245.4 215.7 263.7 234.1 274.0 243.4 273.7 239.4 287.2 252.1 296.5 266.4 308.4 277.4 317.7 284.4 332.5 297.8 338.1 302.0 Forecast 344.9 311.6 355.7 321.5 366.8 331.7 378.3 342.3 390.2 353.2 402.4 364.4 415.1 376.0 428.1 388.0 441.5 400.4 455.4 413.1 469.6 426.2 484.4 439.8 499.6 453.8 515.2 468.3 531.4 483.2 548.0 498.5 565.2 514.4 583.0 530.8 601.2 547.7 620.1 565.1 Peak Demand, MW 41.0 43.3 43.3 43.4 44.9 46.6 49.2 49.8 52.7 54.1 56.2 58.3 60.5 62.8 65.2 67.7 70.2 72.9 75.7 78.6 81.6 84.7 87.9 91.2 94.7 98.3 102.0 105.9 109.9 114.1 y T&D Losses, % of GWH 12.1% 11.2% 11.2% 12.6% 12.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.5% 10.4% 10.7% 10.7% 10.6% 10.6% 10.5% 10.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.7%
Year
Load Factor 68.3% 69.5% 72.2% 72.0% 73.0% 72.6% 71.6% 72.8% 72.0% 71.3% 70.1% 69.7% 69.2% 68.8% 68.3% 67.9% 67.5% 67.0% 66.6% 66.2% 65.7% 65.3% 64.9% 64.5% 64.1% 63.7% 63.3% 62.8% 62.4% 62.0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-11
6.2.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Table 6-11 presents historical loads for 2002 - 2007 and forecast loads until the year 2028. The historical load data is based on a 2007 audit report provided by St. Vincent Electricity Services. Based on six years of historical data, we estimated the load growth for 2008 and the rest of the planning at 6.9% for both energy and peak load. T&D losses are projected to remain at 8.7% during the entire planning period. Table 6-11 Summary Load Forecast for St. Vincent and Grenadines
Net Generation, GWH 100.2 105.3 116.9 127.5 130.4 137.5 145.8 155.9 166.7 178.2 190.5 203.7 217.8 232.8 248.9 266.1 284.5 304.1 325.1 347.6 371.6 397.3 424.8 454.1 485.5 519.0 554.9 Customer Load, GWH Historical 89.8 95.4 106.5 116.4 118.5 125.5 134.1 Forecast 143.4 153.3 163.9 175.2 187.3 200.3 214.1 228.9 244.7 261.6 279.7 299.0 319.7 341.8 365.4 390.6 417.6 446.5 477.3 510.3 Peak Demand, MW 18.6 18.6 20.7 22.5 23.2 23.2 24.8 26.5 28.3 30.3 32.4 34.6 37.0 39.6 42.3 45.2 48.4 51.7 55.3 59.1 63.2 67.6 72.2 77.2 82.6 88.3 94.4 System T&D Losses, % of GWH 10.4% 9.3% 8.9% 8.2% 9.1% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7%
Year
Load Factor 61.5% 64.6% 64.6% 64.7% 64.2% 67.7% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-12
6.2.11 Martinique Table 6-12 presents partial historical loads for 1999-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Martinique. The historical load data is based on EDFs 2007 investment plan, updated in 2008. The 2009-2020 load growth rate is forecasted at 2.7%. This forecast was extended until 2028 using the growth rate from 2019 t0 m2020. The resulting planning period growth is about 2.5%. Table 6-12 Summary Load Forecast for Martinique
Year Net Generation, GWH Historical 1110 1161 1241 1271 1338 1382 1448 1485 1488 1530 Forecast 1,575 1,620 1,672 1,727 1,783 1,840 1,900 1,938 1,978 2,018 2,058 2,100 2142 2186 2230 2275 2321 2368 2416 2465 Peak Demand, MW 181 189 197 201 210 218 226 228 237 242 247 255 263 272 281 290 297 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 378 387 Load factor 70.0% 70.1% 71.9% 72.2% 72.7% 72.4% 73.1% 74.4% 73.7% 74.3% 74.9% 74.9% 74.8% 74.8% 74.8% 74.8% 74.6% 74.5% 74.3% 74.1% 74.0% 73.8% 73.7% 73.5% 73.4% 73.2% 73.0% 72.9% 72.7%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6-13
6.2.12 Guadeloupe Table 6-13 presents partial historical loads for 1999-2008 and forecast loads until the year 2028 for Guadeloupe. The historical load data and forecast is based on EDFs 2009 medium load forecast and investment plan for the 2009-2025 period. Load growth is forecast at 2.7% for energy and 2.5% for peak demand. This forecast was extended until 2028 using the growth rate from 2024 to 2025. Table 6-13 Summary Load Forecast for Guadeloupe
Year Net Generation, GWH Historical 1,167 1,219 1,286 1,323 1,386 1,450 1,500 1,537 1,609 1,612 Forecast 1,663 1,720 1,775 1,832 1,888 1,947 2,003 2,060 2,117 2,174 2,233 2,284 2,337 2,390 2,445 2,501 2,559 2,618 2,679 2,741 Peak Demand, MW 188 193 203 206 218 225 236 235 241 242 250 256 263 269 276 284 291 298 305 313 321 329 337 346 354 363 372 381 391 400 Load factor 70.9% 72.1% 72.3% 73.3% 72.6% 73.6% 72.6% 74.7% 76.2% 76.0% 75.9% 76.7% 77.0% 77.7% 78.1% 78.3% 78.6% 78.9% 79.2% 79.3% 79.4% 79.2% 79.2% 78.9% 78.8% 78.7% 78.5% 78.4% 78.3% 78.2%
6-14
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
6.3
REGIONAL LOAD FORECAST
Table 6-14 presents the Caribbean countries net peak demand forecasts for 2009 2028. Table 6-15 presents the corresponding net energy generation requirements. Net generation means the inputs to the transmission system at the generating units. From 2009 to 2028, combined peak demand is projected to increase by 95.8%, nearly doubling and corresponding to an annual rate of 3.6%. Energy demand is projected to increase slightly more, by 98.8%, also nearly doubling and corresponding to an annual growth rate of 3.7%. With some variations, and generally higher growth rates for smaller systems, load growth is relatively evenly distributed throughout the region.
6-15
Table 6-14 Net Peak Demand Load Forecast (MW)

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

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Antigua Dominican and Barbados Dominica Grenada Republic Barbuda 318 315 312 410 422 434 447 461 475 489 503 519 534 550 567 583 600 618 636 654 1,039 1,073 1,107 1,143 1,180 1,218 1,258 1,298 1,340 1,384 1,428 1,475 1,522 1,572 1,622 1,675 1,729 1,785 1,843 1,902 87 89 91 94 96 99 101 104 106 109 112 114 117 120 123 126 129 133 136 139 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 198 209 220 232 244 257 270 285 300 316 333 350 369 389 409 431 454 478 504 530 Haiti 660 726 799 878 966 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782 Jamaica 4,490 4,674 4,865 5,066 5,277 5,494 5,726 5,974 6,232 6,497 6,777 7,073 7,376 7,696 8,024 8,370 8,734 9,114 9,510 9,924 St. Kitts 161 166 171 175 180 186 191 196 202 208 214 220 226 233 239 246 253 261 268 276 Nevis 60 67 74 82 86 90 94 99 103 107 111 115 119 124 129 134 139 145 150 156 St. Lucia 345 356 367 378 390 402 415 428 442 455 470 484 500 515 531 548 565 583 601 620 St. Vincent and Martinique Guadeloupe Grenadines 156 167 178 191 204 218 233 249 266 284 304 325 348 372 397 425 454 485 519 555 1,575 1,620 1,672 1,727 1,783 1,840 1,900 1,938 1,978 2,018 2,058 2,100 2,142 2,186 2,230 2,275 2,321 2,368 2,416 2,465 1,663 1,720 1,775 1,832 1,888 1,947 2,003 2,060 2,117 2,174 2,233 2,284 2,337 2,390 2,445 2,501 2,559 2,618 2,679 2,741 Total 23,391 24,322 25,295 26,387 27,363 28,303 29,362 30,448 31,576 32,751 33,979 35,252 36,483 37,761 39,082 40,454 41,881 43,361 44,897 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%
6-17
Section 7
Fuel Supply
Section 7.1 provides an overview of the existing fuel supply to Study islands. Section 7.2 discusses potential fuel supply options for liquid and solid fuels, and the estimated costs of delivery to Study countries. Section 7.3 describes potential natural gas fuel delivery systems, and the estimated costs of delivery to Study countries. Section 7.4 addresses fuel storage. Section 7.5 explains our approach to fuel pricing and provides fuel price forecasts for the different fuels. 7.1 EXISTING FUEL SUPPLY
For most of the Study countries the fuel supply is either distillate or heavy fuel oil, as Table 7-1 shows. Table 7-1 Fuels Used by Country Current Fuels for Thermal Power Generation Heavy Fuel Natural Oil Gas Distillate Coal Other X X X X X Bagasse X X X X X 20% by Hydro X X X X X Bagasse X X X X X X X X X
Country Antigua & Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica Martinique St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago
Except in Trinidad, most of the liquid fuels used are imported. Some liquid fuels come from Venezuela through the Petro Caribe agreements and others from refineries in Aruba, Curacao, Surinam, and St. Croix. The Dominican Republic has two small refineries that produce products for the domestic market but also fuel oils for the power generation industry. Jamaica has a refinery which imports crude oil and produces some liquid fuels for power generation plus diesel, gasoline, and aviation fuels for domestic consumption. Martinique has a small refinery
7-1
that produces heavy fuel oil for power generation in Martinique and Guadeloupe as well as products for domestic consumption. These refineries provide competition with the international oil companies to keep a lid on prices of imported liquid fuels. Barbados actually produces a small amount of crude oil and sends it to Trinidad for processing. Barbados also produces a small amount of natural gas which is used for domestic consumption as well as power generation. Trinidad is the major producer of natural gas as well as crude oil and petroleum products. All its electric generation is with natural gas. There are several power generating units in the Dominican Republic that are coal fired steam generators. These plants also use petroleum coke as a fuel from time to time as the pricing conditions warrant. Guadeloupe has two coal fired steam generators that also burn bagasse and provide a quarter of the countrys electricity production. Section 7-5 discusses fuel prices in detail, but here we will note that distillate, HFO, natural gas, and coal are internationally traded products with 2008 average prices for deliveries to US power shown in the bullets below. Caribbean prices for the liquid fuels would be somewhat higher due to higher transportation costs. Caribbean prices for the other fuels would increase even more because they will need more costly facilities to be able to receive the fuel. These prices demonstrate that for the most part the Caribbean islands today rely on the highest price fuels, which is of course part of the reason for this Study, and why an important part of the work is to estimate the delivered cost of the other fuels. 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.1.1 Distillate: $18.70/GJ HFO: $13.52/GJ Natural gas: $9.01/GJ Coal: $1.91/GJ Coal for exports: $3.01/GJ (Note not for deliveries to US power plants) POTENTIAL FUEL SUPPLY OPTIONS Liquid Fuels Distillate
We use the terms distillate and diesel interchangeably, indicating a refined product capable of being used in diesel engines and gas turbines. This is currently the preferred fuel from an environmental standpoint in the absence of natural gas, which produces fewer air emissions. Many of the existing diesel engines in the smaller islands are designed for using this fuel. However, it is the most expensive fuel, significantly more costly than heavy fuel oil (HFO). 7.2.1.2 HFO
This fuel is preferred by many of the poorer countries because of the lower cost. However, many of the diesel engines have to be designed to handle this fuel as there can be more maintenance required due to contaminants such as metals and coke. In addition, it is more polluting and is banned in many areas near resorts because of this characteristic. Countries such as Grenada use
7-2
only diesel, whereas other nations such as Jamaica are trying to phase out heavy fuel oil from an environmental policy point of view. 7.2.2 7.2.2.1 Solid Fuels Coal
Introduction Coal has been used in the Dominican Republic as fuel for four different steam power plants at Barahona. The coal is primarily from Colombia, but some has been purchased from the United States through a general coal purchase agreement. There is a bulk material receiving capable of offloading 1,600 tons/hr. Two of the four coal fired steam plants produce the least costly power in the Dominican Republic (other than hydroelectric power), and the third coal plant produces the sixth least costly power in the country. The main drawback with coal fuel is higher air emissions (including CO2) than other fuels. In addition, new coal-fueled power plants have much higher initial capital costs than other generators such as diesel or gas turbine-based units. Coal also cannot be used as an alternate fuel in diesel generators or gas turbines. There are also pulverized coal power plants in Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico. There are two coal plants in Guadeloupe which burn both coal and bagasse. Recently another bagasse/coal plant has come on line in Guadeloupe. Coal is imported to the Dominican Republic through general purchase agreements with companies that buy the coal and provide the shipping. At the end of 2008 the price (in $/GJ) of coal was 60% the price of HFO, 44% the price of LNG and 31% the price of distillate. These are just the cost of the fuels at their export locations. For the islands without any coal import facilities or power plants that can handle coal, transitioning to coal becomes much more expensive in relation to liquid fuels since the cost of a coal terminal that is only used a few times a year must be incurred as well as the new coal plant that will need to conform to the environmental standards of the country. Economics Coal for the Caribbean consumption is available from Colombia, Venezuela and the United States. The Dominican Republic, the main user of coal in the Caribbean, purchases most of its coal from Colombia although some can come from Venezuela and United States. Coal is transported from these countries in dry bulk carriers that are in the Handymax class of ships. The typical load is 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes. Transportation costs have been developed for coal that are added to the price of coal FOB Colombia or US to determine the price of coal delivered to the individual Study islands. The variable transportation cost includes the daily charter rate plus crew costs, fuel, tugs, insurance, and port fees. The fixed costs will be the cost of a coal import terminal if one is not available plus the O&M cost of the terminal. Except for larger coal consumers, the major transportation cost is the coal import terminal. For small power plants, the terminal is used infrequently. It is assumed that the coal import terminal would be located at the power plant. Figure 7-1 shows coal transportation costs for a range of power plant sizes,
7-3
assuming fuel heat content of 27,900 GJ/kg, a heat rate of 11,800 kJ/kWh, and a 75% capacity factor. Analysis The advantages of coal are as follows: It is less expensive than liquid fuels on a $/GJ basis The price is more stable than liquid fuels and there are more suppliers than LNG Colombian coal is high quality with low sulfur (<1%), moisture and ash
The disadvantages of coal are as follows: The fuel is not compatible with existing non coal fired power generation facilities. Any new use has to include a new coal fired power plant. Large investment for coal import terminals if they cannot be used for other bulk materials. The largest carbon imprint of all fuels Sulfur, NOx and particulate emissions higher than other fuels
7-4
Coal Transportation Cost

12.00
10.00
Coal Transportation Cost, $/GJ
8.00
Coal to Eastern Caribbean Islands
6.00
4.00
Coal to Jamaica & Dominican Republic
2.00
0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Power Plant Size, MW
Figure 7-1 Coal Transportation Costs
7-5
7.2.2.2
Petroleum Coke
Introduction Although the majority of the petroleum coke produced in the world is used in the metallurgical and cement industries, a considerable portion is used in power generation where it competes with steam coal. This fuel has been used as an alternative to coal in the DR coal fired power plants under the same coal purchase agreement. In Jamaica, the Petroleum Company of Jamaica (Petrojam) plans to install a Delayed Coking unit to convert the heavy part of the crude to diesel and lighter distillate products plus petroleum coke. This will eliminate the use of heavy fuel oil as a power plant fuel source. Jamaica Public Service would like to build a power plant next door to utilize the byproduct petroleum coke. Petroleum coke generally has a higher heating value than coal, lower volatiles but higher sulfur. The high sulfur levels limit the sources of supply of this fuel in order to meet the local environmental standards. Venezuela produces substantial amounts of petroleum coke as a byproduct of processing their heavy crude oil. Petroleum coke can be used in power plants similar to conventional or circulating fluidized bed steam coal fired power plants. Economics The application that appears most economic in the Caribbean is proposed JPS power plant adjacent to the Petrojam refinery where a proposed new Delayed Coker is planned. Being adjacent to the fuel supply, the only transportation cost will be to convey the coke to the next door power plant. This is beneficial for both the refinery and the power plant as it eliminates transportation expenses. There may still be a need for a coke/coal terminal in case the coke production and the power generation requirements do not match such that there is an excess or shortfall of petroleum coke. If petroleum coke is to be used elsewhere similar transportation costs as coal will apply. Analysis The advantages of petroleum coke It can often be substituted for coal as a fuel in existing pulverized coal boilers, or used in purpose-built conventional and circulating fluidized bed steam power plants.
The disadvantage of petroleum coke 7.2.3 7.2.3.1 Not widely used in the Caribbean so arranging deliveries will be more difficult than coal It has different properties of ash and sulfur so may not be compatible with all existing coal fired boilers Generally higher in sulfur than Colombian coal Natural Gas Delivery Systems Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline (ECGP) and Other Potential Gas Pipeline Options
Introduction
7-6
The initial pipeline concept was proposed in 2002 by the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago. Intra Caribbean Gas Pipeline Limited (ICGPL) was formed to promote this pipeline. The current ownership is 40.5% Guardian Holdings, 40.5% Trinidad & Tobago Unit Trust Corp, 10% National Gas Company of Trinidad & Tobago (NGC), and 9% ICGPL. This partnership is now Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline Company (ECGPC). The initial section is to be a 180 mile 10 inch pipeline from Tobago to northwest of Barbados with a small offshore lateral to the main power plant. The second section is a 120 mile 10 inch line from Barbados to Martinique with a side spur to St. Lucia. The third section is a 172 mile 8 inch line from Martinique to Guadeloupe. The pipeline is designed to send 50 MMscfd to Barbados and 100 MMscfd combined gas to Martinique, Guadeloupe and St. Lucia. This pipeline reaches depths of 5,300 ft between Tobago and Barbados and 5600 ft of depth near Martinique. An initial mapping survey was performed in 2004 by Doris Engineering (now Doris Engineering of France, a well-regarded deep-water engineering and project management firm) who developed a capital cost estimate of $550 million for the project. This cost was updated in 2008 to $800 million. Since the last cost update, many of the costs have come down and the ECGPC feels it is now closer to $675 million. Technical Feasibility The pipeline appears to be technically feasible since the Blue Stream pipeline across the Black Sea was deeper, longer and consisted of two 24 inch lines. Because of the hurricane season, each of the pipeline sections must be completed from the end of November to the beginning of June. This is 6 months or approximately 180 days. The S-lay barges can average approximately 2.5 miles/day. For the longest leg of 180 miles this works out to be 75 days, well under the allowable time window. The larger J-lay barges as used in the Blue Stream project have a lay speed about 60 to 70% of the S-lay, or 1.5 miles/day, which works out to 125 days which is also within the allowable time window. This allows for any weather delays or overcoming unforeseen obstacles that may be encountered. The ultra deep pipeline construction technology has made enormous progress in the past 10 years as offshore oil exploration and production has reached depths in excess of 8,000 feet. Submarine pipeline repairs are possible at these depths with remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) in case damage is done to the pipeline during installation. There are still some risks that were identified in the original study performed by Doris Engineering in 2004. There are some tectonic areas that have been avoided by abandoning the routes to Grenada and St. Vincent. There are also some steep slopes off the shores of Martinique that may require rerouting, which could add additional pipeline length to avoid these areas. It could also mean an additional onshore pipeline in Martinique instead of an offshore leg. However, these risks can be overcome when a High Resolution Seabed survey is conducted prior to detailed engineering. This will allow identification of an acceptable routing. Other Issues NGC is committed to building a 12 inch pipeline from the eastern gas fields of Trinidad up to Tobago. They have purchased the pipe but have delayed construction until 2010. Currently the Trinidad government is willing to commit 30 MMscfd of gas to Barbados as long as it is only used for power generation and not to produce basic chemicals such as methanol and ammonia. Currently the Barbados government is deciding whether to endorse the pipeline. The previous government favored the pipeline, but the new government is revisiting the various natural gas options.
7-7
The commitment of Guadeloupe and Martinique to participate in the pipeline is uncertain at this point. ECGPC is the project developer of the offshore pipelines to Martinique and Guadeloupe, with Monplaisir Energy in Martinique being responsible for promoting the pipeline and its benefits to the local and French authorities. Monplasir Energy has obtained backing from the French government who want to reduce the subsidies provided to their high-electricity-cost territories. Customers in French islands already pay for electricity at same rates as Parisians; the difference between the cost of producing electricity in the islands and the customer revenues is a government subsidy. The incentive to switch to gas from distillate or HFO is in reducing the subsidy as well as reducing CO2 emissions. The French lending arm CDC has acknowledged the importance of this project and is willing to offer its help with the project. The trade department of the Martinique government has been involved in discussions with Trinidad and Tobagos ministry of energy who have in principle offered to facilitate securing the 100 MMscfd of gas needed for the French territories. There is also interest from various commercial groups in Martinique and Guadeloupe who are willing to commit to certain quantities of gas contingent on a price. There have also been discussions with Trinidad gas producers, but no commitment has been made yet. Economics Preliminary independent cost estimates indicate that the capital costs ECGPC are using are reasonable. The pipeline sizes were verified by conducting a hydraulic simulation of the entire pipeline system. To verify the capital costs, quotes were obtained from Japanese pipe suppliers as well as pipe coating installers. Daily rates for S Lay barges, tugs and supply boats were obtained and added to crew and fuel costs. Additional costs were obtained for horizontal shore drilling and pipe trenching. The initial gas conditioning and compression plant costs were developed using a commercial cost estimating program. The variable costs of the pipeline are based on the compression requirements which were assumed to be electric motor driven compressors with power purchased from Trinidad and Tobago. In additional there would be operating and maintenance costs for the pipeline, gas conditioning and compression stations in Tobago as well as at metering stations at the various islands. The ECGPC will not be purchasing the gas from the Trinidad gas producers. It is only going to charge the final customers for the transportation costs. The economics of this option as well as any other natural gas option will depend on the price of gas that the final customers can negotiate from the Trinidad gas producers. Currently Trinidad has several tiers of natural gas pricing depending on use of the gas. The highest price is for the LNG production where it gets world indexed prices. The lowest price is for the residential customers and is quite low. The next level is for industrial and commercial customers and varies by type of industry. The next level is for the industrial chemical producers who make methanol, ammonia, and other chemicals. This price varies with the world commodity prices and is possibly 75% of the LNG spot market price. We based the price of gas at the input to the pipeline on our estimates of the price of gas as input to the LNG facilities, as described in more detail in Section 7.5. In brief, this is the landed price of LNG in the US less losses of 9.1% and gasification costs of $1.42/GJ. How the pipeline transportation costs will be distributed among the various islands will be ultimately determined by negotiations between the pipeline company and the individual islands. There are several ways to distribute the fixed and variable costs. For this evaluation, the fixed
costs for each of the individual legs were multiplied by the maximum volume of gas to each island divided by the total volume of gas using that section of pipeline. This was done for each section of pipeline. This was then added up and each islands contribution was determined. This resulted in 11% of the capital cost allocated to the Barbados, 26% to Martinique, 16% to St. Lucia and 47% to Guadeloupe. In addition, costs unique to each island are added to the common costs. With this pricing model the transportation costs for gas to each country for 2014, 2020, and 2028 are shown in Table 7-2. We assumed 15 year life and real (without inflation) cost of capital of 10% per year. Transportation costs were also determined assuming all islands shared a common price taking the total cost and dividing it by the corresponding total volume of gas transported each year. This is included in the last column in Table 7-2. The pipeline is designed to be able to supply 2028 demand. Most of its costs are fixed annual costs that do not depend on demand. Therefore, the unit costs in $/GJ are highest in 2014, which has the lowest demand and spreads the fixed costs over the smallest number of GJ. They decline between 2014 and 2020, and 2020 and 2028, as demand increases. This is true for Tables 7-3 through 7-5 as well. The unit costs increase with pipeline length, with costs lowest for Barbados, then steadily increasing for Martinique, St. Lucia (longer pipeline even though closer to Barbados), and Guadeloupe. Table 7-2 Pipeline Transportation Costs All Islands Connected Transportation Costs, $/GJ, Based On Segment Costs and Usages Year 2014 2020 2028 Barbados 2.28 2.03 1.58 Martinique 4.08 3.59 3.07 St. Lucia 6.73 5.63 4.47 Guadeloupe 9.15 5.58 4.73 Common Price to All All Islands 4.84 3.88 3.21
We also looked at the cost of gas if one or more sections of pipeline are not built. Table 7-3 shows the transportation costs if the pipeline section to St. Lucia is not built. The last column shows the cost if the costs were evenly distributed to each island. The unit costs for the three connected islands are somewhat higher than when all four islands are connected, as some economies of scale are lost.
7-9
Table 7-3 Pipeline Transportation Costs St. Lucia Not Connected Transportation Costs, $/GJ, Based On Segment Costs and Usages Year 2014 2020 2028 Barbados 2.45 2.18 1.69 Martinique 4.34 3.82 3.27 St. Lucia N/A N/A N/A Guadeloupe 9.57 5.84 4.94 Common Price to All All Islands 4.94 3.94 3.28
Table 7-4 shows the transportation costs if the pipeline sections to both St. Lucia and Guadeloupe are not built. The last column shows the cost if the costs were evenly distributed to Barbados and Martinique. These prices are higher still that when three or all four islands are connected. Table 7-4 Pipeline Transportation Costs St. Lucia and Guadeloupe Not Connected Transportation Costs, $/GJ, Based On Segment Costs and Usages Year 2014 2020 2028 Barbados 3.18 2.83 2.20 Martinique 6.00 5.27 4.51 St. Lucia N/A N/A N/A Guadeloupe N/A N/A N/A Common Price to All All Islands 4.79 4.22 3.47
Table 7-5 shows the transportation costs if the pipeline was built only to Barbados, but its section was sized for a future expansion to the other islands. These prices are highest of all. If the pipeline were re-optimized for service to Barbados only, the prices shown would fall significantly. Similar statements regarding re-optimization would apply for Tables 7-3 and 7-4, though the impact on prices would be less.
7-10
Table 7-5 Pipeline Transportation Costs Barbados is Only Island Connected Transportation Costs, $/GJ, Based On Segment Costs and Usages Year 2014 2020 2028 Analysis The advantages of the pipeline over the other options are as follows: The gas supply is not affected by weather or breakdowns in the shipping component. The only likely gas interruption scenario would be a failure of the feed gas compressors. This can be avoided by having sufficient compressor spare capacity. For the capital cost it is assumed that either three 50% compressors or two 100% compressors would be provided. In addition, the pipeline via linepacking constitutes a storage vessel and the entire pipeline can hold up to 275 MMscf of gas at full pressure and normally around 150 MMscf. The only catastrophic failure would be a pipeline break due to a subsurface seismic event. Even this event is repairable with the submarine technology available today Another advantage is that there is no visual impact offshore as the pipeline approach will be horizontally drilled and be hidden from view except during construction. Very small onshore footprint. Only gas metering and pigging equipment. Solves the fuel diversity problem for several islands. Is expandable to other islands north of Guadeloupe by installation of compressor stations on Barbados and northward. Operating cost is predictable as it is mainly the operation of the compression stations. With a dry sweet gas corrosion should be minimal. The financing for the project can be provided by the pipeline company Barbados 6.38 5.66 4.40 Martinique N/A N/A N/A St. Lucia N/A N/A N/A Guadeloupe N/A N/A N/A Common Price to All All Islands N/A N/A N/A
Potential disadvantages of the pipeline include: The economics are improved with more users connected to the pipeline. As more parties are involved, the complexity of the project increases. It may be difficult getting commitments from all the islands in a timely manner. Many agreements must be put in place before financial close and beginning of detailed engineering such as: Gas supply contracts with producers and users Approval from government entities
- Agreements with other groups within each island who need to commit to take a fixed quantity of gas. - Reasonable price guarantees to get users to commit. A catastrophic failure such as a line break caused by a submarine seismic event or overstress at an unsupported span could temporarily or permanently shutdown the pipeline. Even this event is repairable with the submarine technology available today. ROVs can go to these depths, cut out pipe and weld new pipe in place. The goal of detailed submarine pipeline mapping phase of the project will be to minimize the potential risks that can pose extra stress on the pipeline. Most of the capital cost has to be spent at the beginning of the project when the demand is much less than the ultimate demand. Early year unit costs in $/GJ are relatively high. If the pipe became corroded throughout, it would have to be abandoned. There should be little risk of internal corrosion of the pipeline as the natural gas is dry, sulfur free and non-corrosive. The Fusion Bonded Epoxy coating, along with the pipeline being buried, should prevent external corrosion to the pipeline. The pipe will be inspected by use of smart pigs which will monitor pipe thickness such that mitigating steps can be made in the unlikely event that corrosion is detected. LNG Option for the Caribbean Region
7.2.3.2
Introduction Currently Trinidad is the largest exporter of LNG to the United States and one of the largest LNG exporters in the world. It also exports LNG to two of the islands in the Caribbean. In Penuelas, Puerto Rico the LNG terminal supports a 540 MW power plant plus a desalination plant. In Andres, Dominican Republic, the LNG terminal supports a 310 MW power plant. Both of these facilities are designed to accommodate large 140,000 cubic meter LNG tankers. They both have long jetties to handle the deep draft of the large LNG tankers. Both of these systems were constructed in the early 2000s when the cost of LNG systems hadnt increased to the level it did in the mid 2000s. There has been talk of other LNG liquefaction plants being built in Colombia and Venezuela, but there is currently no firm commitment to build any of these plants. The assumption is that these options are far in the future and therefore they are not considered for this study. LNG Markets LNG is the best option to transport large amounts of gas long distances. There is very little experience with shipping small quantities short or medium distances. Most of the LNG ship manufacturers are geared to building large tankers in the 135,000 to 250,000 cubic meter size to service the long transport distances. The majority of large isolated gas resources in Australia, the Persian Gulf, and South East Asia are long distances from the major markets in Asia, Europe, and United States. The potential markets in the Caribbean for LNG are for small quantities at short to medium distances. There is very little experience building small LNG ships or barges and a limited number of shipyards are outfitted to produce these vessels. Getting reliable cost
7-12
data for these vessels is difficult because of the limited experience. Finding a shipyard to construct one at fair price will be difficult if it has a backlog of the larger world class size LNG tankers. One of the problems with the Caribbean islands is that the larger ones with reasonable potential natural gas demands lack any internal gas pipeline system. They also have power plants spread around the islands. Therefore to deliver LNG to all the power plants would require the added cost of a pipeline distribution system. Unless the economics justified developing the pipeline system, the LNG market would be limited to the largest individual power plant or to power plants that are not too far apart. This reduces the market considerably and increases the unit gas delivery cost since the unloading terminal costs are not too sensitive to quantity of LNG delivered. Obviously LNG was attractive for Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic when those two countries built their LNG receiving terminals. They were both associated with a large power plant complex situated adjacent to the terminal. For the rest of the Caribbean probably the only good candidates are Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Barbados. In the future, Cuba would be a prime candidate. The other markets are too small as the infrastructure of receiving terminals and storage is expensive and overwhelms any savings from gas displacing distillate of HFO. Caribbean LNG Experience AES Dominica has had good experience with LNG at their Andres facility. They receive a shipment approximately every 45 days. The gas cost covers shipping, which is arranged by BP. Their gas contract is based on taking a minimum gas volume per year. The price is indexed with a floor and a ceiling. They have experienced no safety incidents and weather hasnt affected their ability to generate power. The electricity generated by their combined cycle power plant is one of the cheapest in the Dominican Republic next to hydroelectric and coal. The location of the regasification terminal is at the end of a peninsula distant from any residential areas. Tropical storms have not limited their ability to accept LNG. From the Andres Terminal there is a 34 km pipeline that transports natural gas to two power plants that can generate 240 MW. There are also plans for an additional pipeline to other power plants as well as an LNG truck loading facility. They hope to expand the user base to industries that will eventually be fed by a future pipeline system. Economics Some preliminary cost evaluations were performed based on leasing existing LNG carriers and transporting to the islands where the LNG would be regasified on Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRU) permanently moored to a purpose-built jetty. One of the assumptions made is that the LNG would come from an existing facility and would not require a new standalone liquefaction plant. This improves the economics since it takes advantage of the economies of scale of world size LNG facilities already located in Trinidad. If a new facility were required along with its supporting utilities and infrastructure, none of the islands would be economic with LNG. The quantity of LNG required for the biggest demand is less than 8 % of the LNG production capacity in Trinidad and currently only 75% of the capacity is committed to long term contracts. Therefore no costs of new purpose-built liquefaction facilities were included and
7-13
it was assumed that the LNG storage and wharfs would be available at the Trinidad loading site. It was assumed that the LNG price FOB Trinidad would be similar to the price delivered to the US gulf coast, and that this cost included both the price of the gas supplied and the costs associated with the existing facilities. The transportation cost of the LNG was developed based on leasing existing 130,000 cubic meter LNG carriers as needed to take a ship load to islands as needed similar to the current shipments to the Dominican Republic. There are currently many of these carriers idle as LNG demand has been reduced and many more LNG carriers ordered during the past few years are being delivered. This may not last but some of the new LNG carriers are in the 200,000 + cubic meter size and are more economic for the long hauls from gas producers in Australia and the Middle East to users in Asia and Europe. A total of 54 new LNG ships were delivered in 2008, bringing the world fleet size to 300. The transportation costs for LNG were developed by estimating variable and fixed annual costs. The variable costs including a daily chartering rate for LNG carriers and other variable costs such as fuel, crew, insurance and tugs. An estimate for the yearly cost of a re-gasification vessel was obtained by one of the shipping companies to get an annual fixed cost that was independent of the amount of gas delivered. There are several companies that are taking older 135,000 cubic meter LNG carriers and adding modular re-gasification facilities on board as well as installing loading arms to transfer LNG from the transit carrier to the moored re-gasification vessel. These vessels have multiple months of storage for islands like Jamaica and others, but it is cheaper to convert these older ships than build a new one from scratch that had a smaller storage capacity. The cost of a purpose-built jetty was developed and a yearly amortization was calculated. Other costs that were unique to each island were developed such as pipelines to the power plants and other potential users. Figure 7-2 shows the LNG transportation costs for a range of power plant sizes, assuming gas demands based on a heat rate of 8,850 kJ/kWh and a plant capacity factor of 75%. Analysis The main advantages of LNG are the following: LNG transport has a 45 year history of safety and no major incidents have occurred that resulted in a major loss of containment of LNG cargoes. The storage available at the re-gasification facility provides continuous backup during hurricane season. Sufficient time exists prior to hurricanes to schedule deliveries to assure adequate storage during hurricanes such that no fuel switching is required. A floating LNG Storage and Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) will have less environmental impact than an onshore based system. This negates some of the normal objections to siting of LNG re-gasification facilities. It can be built in less than 2 years and at a much lower cost than a land based facility.
The main disadvantages of LNG are the following: It is questionable whether the demand on many of the islands is sufficient to justify the fixed costs of LNG facilities
7-14
These islands have many environmentally sensitive areas onshore and offshore so locating the unloading and storage areas will require added expense and available locations may be limited. There is a negative public perception about LNG where a large quantity of volatile material is stored. The experience of the west coast and east coasts of the US are good examples of public resistance when attempting to locate LNG re-gasification terminals. LNG terminals require a deep water berth which may be limited in these islands. The FSRUs are fairly new, but several have been put in service this past year and the carriers have been in operating for over thirty years. Extra costs may be required to moor these in hurricane susceptible locations
7-15
LNG Transportation Costs

38 36 34 32 30 LNG Transportation Cost, $/Gj-HHV 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Power Generation, MW 500 600 700 Basis- 75% Power Plant Utilization 800
Jamaica Eastern Caribbean Islands
Figure 7-2 LNG Transportation Costs
7-16
7.2.3.3
Mid-Scale LNG Option for the Caribbean Region
The delivery of the Interim Report permitted a developer of mid-scale LNG facilities and services to become aware of this Study. Mid-scale refers to systems designed for about 100,000 to 1,000,000 tonnes of LNG per year throughput, enough to serve power generation of 100 to 1,000 MW. The developer approached Nexant and provided information on their approach, which is tailored to the smaller markets that exist on many of the Study islands. The systems relevant to this Study would include a mid-scale carrier of 4,000 50,000 cubic meters, much smaller than the large tankers in the 135,000 to 250,000 cubic meter size discussed in the previous subsection. Storage and regasification facilities would be scaled from 5,000 to 80,000 cubic meters (about two to four weeks average gas send out) for the specific demands of each customer. The devloper indicates that its right-sized systems compensate for the loss of economies of scale with larger carriers and other facilities. The developer provided cost data that can be used to compare with the transportation costs of other fuels. To make a consistent comparison, we adjusted their numbers to include the on-shore gas distribution facilities we assumed were needed to move gas to different power plants, as we had done for the other gas options. We then calculated the costs per GJ for each location. The resulting values indicated that, following the same procedures as previously, the mid-scale LNG option could produce the lowest cost fuel / generation technology combination for five locations. Table 7-6 shows the locations, the mid-scale LNG price, the previous lowest cost fuel, and the previous lowest cost fuel price. The fuel prices are levelized values over the period 2014-2028. On the three smaller islands, coal priced at 12.31 $/GJ is lower in price than mid-scale LNG, but the higher equipment cost and higher heat rates make the cost of power generation slightly higher for the coal-based technology than mid-scale LNG. On the two larger islands, mid-scale LNG price is about 10-20% lower than the large-scale LNG price. Table 7-6 Mid-scale LNG Comparison Antigua and Barbuda Mid-scale LNG Price, $/GJ Generation Technology Previous Fuels Previous Fuel Price, $/GJ Generation Technology 19.42 10 MW MSD Distillate, coal 22.45, 12.31 10 MW MSD, 10 MW CFB 17.25 10 MW MSD Distillate, coal 22.45, 12.31 10 MW MSD, 10 MW CFB 18.40 10 MW MSD Distillate, coal 22.45, 12.31 10 MW MSD, 10 MW CFB 10.73 20 MW LSD LNG 12.73 20 MW LSD 9.82 20 MW LSD LNG 10.90 20 MW LSD
Grenada
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Haiti
Jamaica North
7-17
The developer indicates that it plans to provide the LNG infrastructure as a service. The customer defines the scope of service, and the developer provides design, financing, fabrication, commissioning and operation of equipment to meet service scope. The arrangements would provide contractual certainty with respect to cost of service and operations. Contract length would be 15 25 years with fixed quarterly payments commencing at start of operations and escalating at reference inflation index. Payment would be based on pre-agreed availability and performance criteria. The customer will be responsible for gas procurement. Mid-scale, or as other developers refer to it, small-scale LNG systems have been developed in Norway, where the current market is 120,000 tonnes per year. One developers 300,000 tonnes per year liquefaction plant is due to become operational in 2010 in Stavanger, Norway. Analysis The main advantages of mid-scale LNG are the following: Similar advantages to the larger scale LNG facilities discussed in the previous subsection. Based on the cost figures provided by the developer, mid-scale LNG could provide the most economically attractive option in some locations, especially for islands with smaller demand. The technology involves smaller versions of more commonly used large facilities with proven track records The developer proposes to finance the infrastructure facilities and offer the services on a fixed price basis
The main disadvantages of mid-scale LNG are the following: Some similar disadvantages to the larger scale LNG facilities discussed in the previous subsection, though to a lesser degree: not applicable to the smallest islands, environmental issues, public perception of safety, cost of mooring in hurricane susceptible locations Because the technology is smaller in scale than the commonly used equipment, Nexant was unable to verify or suggest revisions to the cost information presented Several factors may lead to increased costs: Most LNG loading facilities are used by much larger carriers and may be unwilling to reserve space for the smaller mid-scale carriers on a regular basis. It may be necessary to develop separate docking facilities, with associated costs, to serve the smaller carriers. No costs for separate docking facilities are included. The costs for the current mid-scale LNG system include minimal (one to two weeks) storage. Additional storage will increase the LNG unit price. If demand increases rapidly the initial LNG carriers may have to be replaced with larger vessels, or larger vessels purchased initially.
7-18
Vessels will be purpose built for these markets, each having to be designed for the specific application. The large scale LNG analysis was based on chartering existing LNG vessels and using existing retired large vessels to convert to Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRU). Our preliminary analysis indicates that mid-size LNG could be a viable fuel option for some islands, justifying a more detailed analysis. 7.2.3.4 CNG Option for the Caribbean Region
All of the Caribbean islands would like to diversify their fuel mix as well as reduce carbon emissions. One way to accomplish this is by substituting natural gas for petroleum liquids. Trinidad, Venezuela, and Colombia are the main suppliers of natural gas at this time, but Trinidad is the only country which has a well-developed natural gas industry which is exporting its gas. Trinidad exports its natural gas in large quantities to markets as distant as Europe. Clearly, for producing large gas quantities and transporting it long distances, LNG is the most economic method. However, for smaller quantities and shorter distances Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) has the potential to be the most cost effective option. There has been interest in CNG marine transport in the Caribbean since the mid 1980s, with several projects proposed but none implemented. CNG Development CNG has been used for transportation vehicles since the 1960s, but it was based on overland pipelines to get the gas to the CNG filling stations. The idea of marine transport of CNG has been around since the 1960s with designs that were proposed to shipping agencies such as the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) for certification. These early designs depended on multiple storage vessels stacked on a ship and based on American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes used in oil refinery construction. This resulted in very costly systems that were never economic. In the 1990s several parties convinced the certification agencies that pipeline codes could be used to design the high pressure containers. This reduced the weight of steel required per unit of gas stored. Because of the increased activity in getting stranded gas to markets there are now several groups that have developed novel designs for CNG marine transportation. Each is trying to provide the lowest cost containment per unit of gas. Some systems utilize refrigeration to increase the gas density such that the same quantity of gas can be stored at a lower pressure. Other designs utilize miles of coiled pipe that have simpler fabrication and fewer connections. Another system utilizes composite materials other than steel, while other systems use composite wrapped steel which reduces the thickness of the steel. Some have proposed a refrigerated pressurized liquefied gas to increase the weight of gas per volume. Several of these designs have been approved by the certification agencies ABS and Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and are ready to be used in a commercial design. However, there has been no commercial CNG marine vessel built worldwide at this time. CNG Prospects in the Caribbean Most of the CNG transportation systems that have been proposed lately are self propelled ships designed to deliver large quantities (500-800 MMscf) of gas short distances. The smallest of these vessels can deliver 50 MMscf of gas. Almost all the promoters of these systems propose a
7-19
shuttle system whereby one vessel is loading, one vessel is unloading, and one or more vessels are in transit depending on the distance from the supplier to the unloading facility. Therefore, at least three vessels are required. There is normally limited on-site storage at the customers unloading facility, so the vessel unloads at the normal gas consumption rate to the power plant and waits until the ship in transit arrives. Almost all of the equivalent natural gas demands for the Caribbean islands are below 25 MMscf per day (MMscfd) and most are below 10 MMscfd. For the ship CNG options, the fixed cost do not decrease much below about 50 MMscfd, meaning that the unit cost of gas delivered increases as daily volumes decline. Nevertheless, CNG could still be beneficial for all parties depending on the price differential between what the power utility can negotiate for gas and what it is paying for distillate or fuel oil. This leaves islands such as Jamaica, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Dominican Republic, and possibly Haiti as the best candidates. Barbados is also a candidate since it is quite close to Trinidad (less than one day distant). Economics The promoters of the CNG transportation systems also want to operate with a take or pay transportation tariff. They can provide the capital to buy the ships and the loading and unloading facilities and in turn charge a unit rate with a minimum yearly charge to deliver the gas. As with the pipeline option, the gas contract is between the final customer and the gas producer. The economics are dependant on the gas price and how it varies with known indexes such as Henry Hub and the expected petroleum prices. We have received some confidential economics from some of the CNG systems and it appears that there are some niche markets where CNG is competitive with other gas delivery systems. The most attractive markets have short transportation distances delivering large volumes of gas. The transportation cost of CNG was developed by assuming the gas was contained in pipeline pipe at high pressure and transported in purpose-built ships. For a given CNG ship storage capacity, a weight of steel was estimated based on pipe wall thickness calculated using pipeline codes which have been approved by the certification agencies ABS and DNV. Ship cost and propulsion requirements were estimated based on the volume and weight of the containers plus the gas. The number of ships required was based on distance from gas producers to the gas users, the speed of the ships, and the loading/unloading times and mooring/unmooring times at each end of the transportation cycle. This assumes that as a vessel finishes unloading an arriving fully loaded vessel is ready to begin unloading. The cost of a loading terminal consisting of dehydration and compression equipment was estimated using a commercial cost estimating program. The cost of a loading jetty was estimated assuming it had to accommodate a deep draft vessel with a pipeline from shore with loading arms. At the unloading facility there is a similar jetty with unloading arms, a pipeline to shore and equipment on shore to control the gas temperature. These are the fixed costs. The variable costs consist of the cost of the compression along with its operating, maintenance, insurance and tax costs. The shipping variable costs consist of fuel, crew, insurance, tugs, port fees and maintenance costs. For delivery to countries in the Eastern Caribbean, it was assumed that the gas originated in Trinidad. For delivery to the northern countries such as Jamaica, Haiti and Dominican Republic, the gas originated in Colombia or Venezuela since the distances from there were the shortest. The CNG costs that were developed were in a reasonably close agreement with the confidential
7-20
costs supplied by some of the CNG developers. CNG was cheaper than the other natural gas options in both Grenada and St. Vincent. However, in these two countries, liquid fuels were the cheapest. CNG was not the least cost natural gas option for any of the countries in the northern Caribbean. Figure 7-3 shows the CNG transportation costs for a range of power plant sizes, assuming gas demands based on a heat rate of 8,850 kJ/kWh and a plant capacity factor of 75%. Analysis The main advantages of CNG are the following: The financing can be provided by the CNG promoter The CNG investment can be spread over future years as expansion, when needed, can be accomplished by adding additional CNG vessels or switching them to larger vessels. If dehydration and compression plant is barge mounted, it can be redeployed to another gas source. Some of the designs have been approved by international ship classification agencies ABS and DNV
The disadvantages of CNG are the following: On-site storage is expensive so fuel switching is required during weather delays and planned and unplanned shutdowns. If no on-site storage is available or if two docking berths with the required manifolds are not included, fuel switching may be required each time a CNG ship connects and disconnects. There are no commercial CNG marine transportation systems in operation worldwide today. So there will be the usual problems associated with operating a first of a kind system. Small countries may be reluctant to be the first users of first of a kind technologies. There are more safety and security concerns of the public with storing very high pressure gases dockside. More trips are required in and out of the loading and unloading terminals than LNG. If the harbors have restricted operating hours, this would result in more vessels required and an underutilization of the vessels When high pressure gas is depressurized during unloading, overcooling of the gas due to auto-refrigeration must be controlled to protect the downstream piping and equipment.
7-21
CNG Transportation Cost vs MW & Shipping Distance

18
16
CNG Transportation Cost, $/Gj-HHV
14
1100 Nautical Miles
12
10
6
220 Nautical Miles 600 Nautical Miles
0 0 100 200 300 400 Power Generation, MW 500 600 700 800
Basis 75% Power Plant Utilization
Figure 7-3 CNG Transportation Costs
7-22
7.3 7.3.1
FUEL STORAGE OPTIONS Introduction
For many of the islands in the Caribbean, the petroleum fuel demand is too small to get the same bulk pricing as the larger markets. Delivery costs are higher per unit when the delivered quantities are smaller. Many of the islands have limited storage which makes them susceptible to shortages in the event of interruptions due to a scarcity of petroleum tankers, major weather events, or worldwide oil supply shortages. Fuel deliveries may go to larger markets first in the event of fuel shortages. Having larger regional/sub-regional storage facilities may offer a solution to a more secure and cheaper fuel supply to these islands. To assure fuel security, a three month supply is preferred. To achieve this security, there will be costs for additional storage facilities as well as for interest on the cost of the increased inventory. Another factor that existed for some time is that the major oil companies located storage facilities next to large power plants and those power plants were dependent on the oil companies for their supplies. Having regional storage adds more flexibility to the power plants to obtain their liquid fuel supplies. The larger islands and groups of islands have existing refineries which process crude and store petroleum products such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and heavy fuel oil for domestic consumption and store imported petroleum products above what they refine. Some of the storage is at the refineries and other storage is at the power generation facilities. Because Jamaica, Haiti, and Dominican Republic are remote from the smaller islands in the Eastern Caribbean, they would not be a part of a regional storage solution. 7.3.2 Existing Storage
In the eastern Caribbean countries there are already four centralized storage facilities that serve as transshipment storage facilities for delivery to nearby islands. In St. Lucia, Hess Oil operates a 9 million barrel storage facility at Cul de Sac that handles both crude and petroleum products. Several years ago Hess entered into discussions with the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA to store crude and petroleum products for delivery to other countries with Petro-Caribe agreements. In St. Lucia, LUCELEC also has three weeks of storage at its Cul de Sac power plant. In Antigua the West Indies Oil Company (WIOC) has 200,000 barrels of storage at the location where they used to have a refinery. WIOC has an agreement with PDVSA to lease some of its storage to deliver to neighboring islands. Half the storage is for PDVSA and the other half is for Antigua and Barbuda. Currently due to limited storage in Antigua, a tanker may only deliver a fraction of its shipping storage capacity if no other islands have deliveries scheduled. This can significantly increase the shipping cost. In Martinique, there is a 17,000 barrel per day refinery that supplies finished products for Martinique as well as the other French islands. There is crude oil storage capacity of 1 million barrels which is for two months of operation of the refinery. In addition, there is an additional 503,000 barrels of storage for finished products for domestic consumption as well as for delivery to other islands. Guadeloupe also has its own storage of 630,000 barrels of finished products which is 45 days of storage. Martinique has sometimes in the past rented storage space in St.
Lucia for refined products when the refinery was being revamped to make the latest specification of refined products. There is a fourth regional storage and transshipment facility owned by NuStar Energy in St. Eustatius (Netherland Antilles) which has 13 million barrels of storage for crude oil and other refined petroleum products. NuStar leases 5 million barrels to a major oil producer which receives the crude in large crude carriers where it can be transferred to smaller crude carriers for further distribution in the region. Much of the remaining storage is leased to other parties for use as transshipment storage of distillate and residual fuels. The facility includes a 25,000 barrels per day (BPD) atmospheric topping unit. NuStar operates a bunkering service that delivers bunker fuel to cruise ships and other marine vessels in the region. They also have tugs to help to facilitate mooring at their facilities. This is a potential candidate for regional and sub-regional storage that is already in place. PDVSA has also had discussion with NuStar about leasing storage at their facility. Whether these facilities could be part of a regional storage facility would require further discussions with these operators. 7.3.3 Economics
If larger tankers can be used to transport products, delivery costs per unit of fuel can be reduced as long as additional storage can be provided. A Handymax size product tanker in the Caribbean can transport 300,000 barrels of products. Compared to a tanker that holds 100,000 barrels, this would reduce the shipping cost by over half. However to handle this larger load an additional 200,000 barrels of tankage must be provided. In addition, interest must be paid on the cost of the additional inventory. Three different regional storage options were evaluated based on islands that are within 130 nautical miles of each other. The assumption is that a large tanker would deliver crude from one of the four large Caribbean refineries to a regional storage facility and then be shipped by smaller tanker or barge to each individual island. The four large refiners are Valeros Aruba refinery, PDVSAs Curacao refinery, Hesss St. Croix refinery and Petrotrins Trinidad refinery. These are all approximately 500 nautical miles from the four potential regional storage facilities. The first scenario is expanding the facility in Antigua to serve Nevis, St. Kitts, Barbuda, and St. Maarten. These are all within 87 nautical miles from Antigua. If 200,000 barrels is added, the shipping costs can be reduced from $3.2 million per year to $1.3 million per year. However, $8.4 million is required to develop the storage facilities. After amortizing the new tankage and adding interest on the cost of the additional inventory, the cost exceeds the shipping costs savings of using a larger delivery ship. This scenario is marginally unattractive although with a smaller incremental tankage it could be considered. The second scenario is expanding the facility in St. Lucia to serve Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. These islands are within 130 nautical miles of St. Lucia. If 200,000 barrels are added, the shipping cost is reduced from $3.9 million to $1.9 million. As in the first scenario, $8.4 million is required to develop the storage facilities. After amortizing the new tankage and adding interest on the cost of the additional inventory, the cost is less than the shipping costs savings of using a larger ship. Thus having additional storage in St. Lucia is
7-24
economic as there is a potential savings of approximately $130,000/year (see Table 7-8). Since there already is sufficient tankage in St. Lucia, this is the logical place for regional storage. The third scenario is expanding of expanding tankage in Martinique to serve the French island of Guadeloupe. This facility is not necessary since there already is sufficient tankage here to handle the large ships which carry upwards of 800,000 barrels. In addition, the other French territory, Guadeloupe, has product storage equivalent to two months supply and is large enough to be supplied by large product tankers. No additional storage is needed there. Table 7-7 summarizes regional petroleum consumption for the three scenarios. Table 7-8 provides details on the analysis summarized in the text above. Table 7-7 Regional Petroleum Consumption Storage for 1 Month Consumption, Barrels Storage for Annual Consumption, Barrels
Countries Scenario 1- Storage Terminal at Antigua Antigua & Barbuda St. Kitts & Nevis Montserrat Total Scenario 2 Regional Storage at St Lucia Dominica Grenada St. Lucia St. Vincent Total Scenario 3 Regional Storage at Martinique Guadeloupe Martinique Total
2008 Oil Consumption, Barrels/day
4,560 980 530
136,680 29,400 15,900 181,980
1,664,400 357,700 193,450 2,215,550
850 2,200 2,800 1,600
25,530 66,000 84,000 48,000 223,530
310,250 803,000 1,022,000 584,000 2,719,250
14,800 16,080
444,000 482,400 926,400
5,402,000 5,869,200 11,271,200
7-25
Table 7-8 Summary of Economic Analysis Martinique Storage 11.27 N/A Adequate Today Antigua Storage 2.21 8.4 St. Lucia Storage 2.72 8.4
Total Yearly Consumption, Million Barrels Fixed Cost Additional 200,000 Barrel Storage Tanks, Million US$ Variable Costs 100,000 Barrel Small Tanker Delivery Cost@$1.43/BBL, Million US$/yr 300,000 Barrel Handimax Tanker Delivery Cost @$0.66/BBL, Million US$/yr Tanker Savings, Million US$/yr Storage O&M Cost Insurance Cost Interest on 200,000 BBLs Inventory, Million US$/yr Storage Tank Amortization, Million US$/yr Yearly Savings , Million US$/yr
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.15 1.51 1.66 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.99 -0.25
3.89 1.85 2.04 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.99 0.13
7.3.4
Conclusions
Almost all the countries in the Eastern Caribbean have signed the Petro-Caribe agreements. In these agreements the countries get a base price for the refined products based on an index. The countries then pay for shipping costs. By having sufficient storage, the maximum size ship can be used to deliver the refined products to the regional storage facility. This minimizes the cost to the regional storage facility. PDVSA also provides one or two months of free financing so interest on inventories may apply. However, how long this arrangement will last is unknown. There is still the cost of transshipping the products to each individual island and the economics of this depend on the storage at each individual island although the distances are within 10 hours of transit time. To properly optimize the regional storage, a detailed look at individual storage at each island is required and the cost to transship from the regional storage facilities to each island. The most cost effective system to maximize the existing storage is to have some coordinated purchase and products delivery system whereby a large vessel was to call on all the islands and deliver sufficient products to fill each islands storage while starting with a full vessel load of products. This may result in some islands skipping shipments during some delivery schedules or it may require that some islands have additional storage to fill out the deliveries. Currently the small islands such as Antigua/Barbuda, St. Kitts/Nevis, Montserrat, Dominica, Grenada, St.
7-26
Lucia, and St. Vincent consume a total of approximately 400,000 barrels per month. This is sufficient for a large ship to deliver 300,000 barrels every three weeks. As long as each island has three weeks storage, they could all take advantage of the reduced shipping costs of a large tanker. If Barbados were added they could take advantage of a 700,000 barrel tanker. If they all had two months storage they could take advantage of the reduced cost of a 800,000 barrel tanker. This would require coordination and agreements from many parties. The key player in all of this petroleum storage and supply is PDVSA, which is part owner of two of the four major refineries in the region and also has shown interest in being part owners of the storage in several of the islands. This may limit what can be done with regional storage facilities. There are also non-economic advantages of large regional storage such as the ability to get products from nearby when there is a major worldwide shortage of oil or when there are short term spikes in oil prices. Like the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, products could be withdrawn from a regional storage facility in the event of a short time crisis as long as it didnt last more than a few months. These products could be placed in the regional storage facilities when the oil prices were low. However, it is difficult to define exactly when prices are low or high until after the fact, and there would still be the inventory cost. 7.4 FUEL PRICES AND PROJECTIONS
The objective of the fuel price analysis was to determine the prices for different fuels and then select the fuels for each country to be used in screening and scenario analysis. The general basis for all prices was the March 2009 EIA report on fuel supply, prices, and other parameters, Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2009). Those historical and forecast prices were expressed in 2007 US$ and in $/Million BTU. We converted these prices to 2009 $/GJ by multiplying them by the ratio of the 2009 GDP deflator to the 2007 deflator (1.035577), and to $/GJ by dividing using the number of GJ per million BTU (1.0546). We based our prices on deliveries for Electric Power of Distillate, HFO, Natural Gas, and Steam Coal, and Coal for Exports. Table 7-10 presents the resulting forecast prices after the adjustments mentioned in the paragraph above. We modified these prices to reflect expected prices in the Caribbean. We related the liquid fuel prices to the Caribbean based on the ratio of LUCELEC distillate import prices over 2001 2008 to the US price, a factor of 1.12. The yearly range was 1.07 to 1.15. We related the price of LNG Imports from January 2005 through June 2009 to US natural gas deliveries to electric power, a factor of 0.998306. We assumed that that price would apply to the Caribbean islands, plus the costs and losses of the at-island re-gasification facilities. We assumed that gas sold to be liquefied to LNG was sold at a price below the received price in the US, so that the costs and losses of gasification and transport to the US could be accounted for. From an earlier Nexant study we estimated these costs to be $1.50/million BTU and the losses to be 9.1% of the input gas.
7-27
We assumed that the cost of pipeline gas at the islands would be equal to the calculated input gas price for LNG, as describe in a bullet above, plus the cost of the pipeline and related facilities. We assumed that the cost of CNG at the islands would be equal to the calculated input gas price for LNG, as describe in a bullet above, plus the cost of transportation and related facilities. We assumed that the price of coal at the islands would be equal to the Coal for Exports price, plus the cost of transportation and related facilities. This price correlates well with the price of coal FOB Colombia, Puerto Bolivar, which is also a source of supply.
In Section 7.2 we estimated the capital and O&M cost of the transportation and related facilities for coal, CNG, LNG, and pipeline gas. We separately determined the fixed costs that did not vary with the amount of fuel transported for the range of interest, and the variable costs that did. In all cases fixed annual costs (typically for capital improvements) were a major component of the total cost of transportation. By adding the transportation costs to the basic fuel price, we obtained the cost of fuel at the islands power plants. Except for pipeline gas, Section 7.2 does not calculate a fuel price for each island separately. Instead we estimated costs for several combinations of demand and distance from the source to an island. The graphs in Figures 7-1 (coal), 7-2 (LNG) and 7-3 (CNG) show the price as a function of the amount of fuel transported, as expressed by the amount of power demand in MW at 75% capacity factor. Only for CNG was the distance from the source to the island a major factor, and only Figure 7-3 presents cost results for three different distances: 220, 600, and 1,100 nautical miles. In each case we developed equations to represent the relationships expressed in the graphs of Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3. There are separate equations for coal, LNG, and three equations for CNG, one each for 220, 600, and 1,100 nautical miles. In each case the equation is of the form Cost of transportation in US$ = X + Y * MW Cost of transportation in US$/GJ = (X + Y * MW) / GJ transported Table 7-9 presents the values of X and Y for each case. Table 7-9 Transportation Cost Parameters Case Coal LNG CNG 220 Nautical Miles CNG 600 Nautical Miles CNG 1,100 Nautical Miles X 8,920,000 62,350,000 62,300,000 70,000,000 85,000,000 Y 20,500 18,000 140,000 230,000 307,000
7-28
We assumed that the fuels would be available starting in 2014, and used throughout a 15 year (through 2028) study period. We sized the facilities to accommodate the 2028 demand. Gas can replace distillate or HFO in existing power plants, with some conversion cost. For gas, for most islands the 2028 demand assumed 85% of total generation was from gas at a heat rate of 8,400 BTU/kWh. We used a smaller percentage for some islands with significant existing generation from non-liquid fuels or other factors that would reduce gas demand. Coal cannot replace the liquid fuels in existing facilities, so the demand for coal is limited by the demand increase through 2028 and the other power plants that could come on line by then. For each island we estimated the demand that could be served by coal by 2028. The actual demand each year before 2028 is less than in 2028, meaning the cost of transportation will be higher because the fixed costs are spread over fewer GJ. The goal was to select fuels for further analysis that are lower in price than distillate and therefore offered the possibility of reducing costs in screening and scenario analysis. Based on two rounds of analysis we selected the lowest cost gas option (CNG, LNG, or pipeline), coal (except on Dominica), and distillate as the fuels to be used in screening and scenario analysis. Table 7-11 presents the fuels for each country and their levelized costs including the impact of lower demand in the years before 2028. Every country except Dominica has at least one fuel lower in price than distillate, and Dominica has the possibility of geothermal power, not shown in this fossil-fuel analysis. Screening analysis used only the levelized values. Scenario analysis used the yearly values presented in Table 7-12. Those analyses include other cost factors, not just the fuel prices. Observations The EIA US price for HFO from 2006 through 2008 (not shown) averaged 60% of the distillate price. The forecast 2009 price is 54% of distillate. The HFO price levelized over 2009 2028 is 88% of distillate and is 90% in 2028. The EIA therefore forecasts a large reduction in the premium paid for distillate compared to HFO. If this change does not occur, the incentive to switch from distillate to HFO will remain. The prices for natural gas delivered via pipeline or as LNG in the Caribbean are based on the EIA forecast of the price of natural gas in the US, plus transportation costs. The US price for natural gas levelized over the study period is 37% of the comparable price of distillate. In the Caribbean, the levelized price of pipeline natural gas to (for example) St. Lucia is 51% of the comparable distillate price. These relatively low percentages are consistent with historical data. However, if the price of natural gas relative to distillate rises the benefit of natural gas will be reduced accordingly.
7-29
Table 7-10 EIA US Fuel Prices, $/GJ

Prices in 2009 dollars per GJ Electric Power Distillate HFO Natural Gas Steam Coal Coal for Exports 14.34 14.81 15.96 17.55 18.07 18.90 19.54 19.73 19.77 19.85 20.01 20.08 20.23 20.43 20.37 20.65 20.90 21.12 21.42 21.94 7.86 12.97 14.21 15.77 16.49 17.31 17.86 18.03 18.11 18.17 18.30 18.22 18.41 18.58 18.55 18.72 18.91 19.07 19.39 19.71 6.21 1.88 3.34 6.47 1.86 3.24 6.43 1.87 3.25 6.58 1.88 3.33 6.48 1.89 3.35 6.50 1.90 3.39 6.59 1.91 3.43 6.69 1.89 3.48 6.82 1.88 3.50 7.00 1.88 3.53 7.14 1.88 3.50 7.02 1.88 3.46 6.83 1.88 3.48 6.92 1.89 3.52 6.99 1.90 3.52 7.32 1.91 3.51 7.59 1.92 3.47 7.85 1.94 3.46 8.09 1.95 3.41 8.29 1.96 3.34
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Table 7-11 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 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$/GJ Fuel Selected Coal Distillate N/A 12.31 22.45 7.39 7.77 22.45 N/A N/A 22.45 8.73 4.19 22.45 N/A 12.31 22.45 10.88 7.77 22.45 12.73 7.77 22.45 10.16 4.85 22.45 10.90 4.85 22.45 8.99 7.77 22.45 N/A 12.31 22.45 10.49 9.04 22.45 N/A 12.31 22.45
7-30
Table 7-12 Yearly Prices for Fuels for Caribbean Power Plants
Leveli Leveli zed zed 2009- 20142028 2028
FUEL
YEARLY PRICES FOR FUELS FOR CARIBBEAN POWER PLANTS, US$/GJ Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Distillate 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 21.17 21.89 22.10 22.14 22.24 22.41 22.49 22.65 22.88 22.81 23.13 23.41 23.66 24.00 24.57 20.41 HFO 8.81 14.53 15.91 17.66 18.46 19.39 20.00 20.20 20.28 20.35 20.50 20.40 20.62 20.81 20.77 20.96 21.18 21.36 21.71 22.07 17.87 Distillate Prices Apply for 2009 - 2013 for Existing and New Plants That Eventually Will Use Gas LNG Dom Rep 9.09 9.15 8.94 8.94 8.72 8.62 8.61 8.62 8.67 8.78 8.84 8.66 8.42 8.45 8.48 8.77 9.00 9.21 9.42 9.59 N/A LNG Haiti 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 14.27 13.77 13.36 13.06 12.86 12.65 12.24 11.79 11.64 11.49 11.63 11.73 11.82 11.91 11.98 N/A LNG Jam 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 12.05 11.16 10.59 10.23 10.04 9.88 9.52 9.15 9.07 9.00 9.21 9.38 9.55 9.71 9.84 N/A LNG Jam North 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 11.42 11.24 11.10 11.01 11.00 10.96 10.69 10.36 10.31 10.25 10.48 10.65 10.80 10.96 11.07 N/A GP Barb 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 7.18 7.21 7.25 7.32 7.44 7.51 7.36 7.13 7.17 7.20 7.48 7.70 7.91 8.11 8.27 N/A GP Mart 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 8.81 8.83 8.86 8.93 9.04 9.11 8.95 8.72 8.75 8.76 9.04 9.25 9.45 9.64 9.79 N/A GP StL 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 10.41 10.41 10.43 10.47 10.57 10.62 10.44 10.20 10.21 10.21 10.47 10.67 10.85 11.03 11.17 N/A GP Guad 16.06 16.59 17.87 19.65 20.24 10.91 10.89 10.88 10.90 10.98 11.01 10.81 10.55 10.55 10.53 10.77 10.96 11.13 11.30 11.42 N/A First 4 Rows Below Apply to New Coal Plants from 2014. DR Existing Plant Uses Coal from 2009. Coal 10&20MW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.96 14.25 13.64 13.08 12.59 12.10 11.64 11.28 10.98 10.67 10.37 10.07 9.81 9.54 9.25 N/A Coal 25MW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.96 9.00 9.06 9.08 9.11 9.08 9.03 9.05 9.10 9.10 9.08 9.05 9.04 8.98 8.91 N/A Coal 25&50MW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.96 8.65 8.40 8.15 7.94 7.69 7.45 7.29 7.18 7.04 6.89 6.73 6.60 6.45 6.28 N/A Coal 100&200MW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.11 5.06 5.03 4.98 4.94 4.85 4.76 4.73 4.74 4.70 4.65 4.58 4.54 4.46 4.36 N/A Coal 200&500MW 4.36 4.21 4.18 4.21 4.20 4.21 4.23 4.25 4.25 4.26 4.21 4.16 4.16 4.19 4.18 4.15 4.10 4.08 4.02 3.94 4.21
22.45 20.46 8.73 12.73 10.16 10.90 7.39 8.98 10.49 10.88 12.31 9.04 7.77 4.85 4.19
The countries for which the fuel prices apply are: Distillate and HFO, all countries; LNG Dom Rep, Dominican Republic; LNG Jam, Jamaica; LNG Jam North, Jamaica North Coast; GP Barb, Barbados; GP Mart, Martinique; GP StL, St. Lucia; Guad, Guadeloupe; Coal 10&20MW, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines; Coal 25MW, St. Lucia; Coal 25&50MW, Barbados, Guadeloupe, Haiti, and Martinique; Coal 100&200MW, Jamaica and Jamaica North; Coal 200&500MW, Dominican Republic
7-31
Section 8
Generation Technologies and Expansion Options
Section 8.1 is an overview of the regional types of generating plants. In Sections 8.2 and 8.3 we provide descriptions of, and cost and performance estimates for, a range of fossil-fueled and renewable energy technologies that offer potential benefits to the Study islands. Section 8.4 addresses the availability of renewable energy resources in the Study islands. Section 8.5 covers the upgrade and retrofit of existing units. Section 8.6 reviews and assesses existing and proposed renewable energy projects. 8.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW
The Caribbean regions primary fuels for electrical power generation are the oil-based products distillate and HFO. Coal and natural gas fuel a limited amount of generation in the Dominican Republic and natural gas fuels some generation in Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago. Therefore the main Caribbean generation technologies used today can burn those fuels. Figure 8-1 shows the distribution of generation technologies in the nine main Study countries plus Barbados and Martinique. The values shown are the current net capacities, in MW, including the impact of any capacity reductions for technical or other reasons. Distillate and natural gas fueled gas turbines and combined cycles provide 32% of the total, of which more than two-thirds is fueled by distillate. Distillate and HFO fueled medium and low speed diesel engines (MSD and LSD) supply 36% of the capacity. Steam turbines provide 19% of the capacity, of which more than two-thirds is fueled by HFO, with the remainder using coal. Hydro contributes 11% of the total, with wind, photovoltaic, municipal waste, and cogeneration (Other) combined amounting to about 1%.
Existing Generation Technologes, MW
551 650
47
886
692
1115
Comb Cyc Gas Turb Stm Turb LSD MSD Hydro Other
900
Figure 8-1 Existing Generation Technologies
8-1
Altogether 71% of the installed generation capacity is fueled with distillate and/or HFO. Natural gas supplies 11%, coal 6%, hydro 11%, and Other 1%. In other words, the highest price fuels are by far the main sources of generation. Given this dependence on high-priced liquid fuels, the diversification of the fuel mix and use of renewable resources offers the potential to lower costs and reduce emissions. One of the main goals of the Study is to investigate the feasibility for expansion in the use of potentially less expensive non-liquid fuels, specifically natural gas and coal, and renewable energy resources. All these resources except coal will be less polluting than the liquid fuels. As the results will show, some of the renewable energy resources will also be less expensive than the liquid fuels, as will the use of coal and natural gas for some islands. Figure 8-2 illustrates the range of capital costs for various fossil and renewable energy power generation options potentially suitable for the Caribbean. Nexants estimates are based on studies from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the United States Department of Energy (US DOE), the National Energy Research Laboratory (NREL), and the World Bank, and recent project announcements. The costs are based on US conditions and were not adjusted in attempt to make them Caribbeanspecific. We would expect Caribbean equipment costs to be about the same and labor costs less; site-related costs could be higher or lower. The abbreviations in Figure 8-2 have the following meanings: PV - photovoltaic CSP - concentrating solar power CFB circulating fluidized bed
8-2
CapitalCostvs.MWforGenerationTechnologies
8,000
PVResidential(aggregated) 7,000
6,000 PVCommercial 5,000
k / $
W4,000
Geothermal 3,000 Biomass 2,000 SmallWind LandFill/BioGas 1,000 LargeWind GasTurbine SmallDiesel 0 0.1 1 10 LargeDiesel 100 1000 CFB NGCombinedCycle Coal CSP
CapacityMW
Figure 8-2 Capital Cost Estimate for Power Projects in US
8-3
8.2
FOSSIL FUEL TECHNOLOGIES COSTS AND PERFORMANCE
The bullet list below presents the fossil technologies we included in our evaluation. We considered capacity ranges that included small units that would be appropriate for the islands with low demand. Pulverized coal (PC) fired steam plant: 100 - 750 MW Coal fired circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plant: 10 - 50 MW Simple cycle combustion gas turbine (CGT) plant: 10 - 100 MW Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant: 100 - 300 MW Low and medium speed (LSD, MSD) gas and distillate fueled diesel engines: 5 - 50 MW
The study did not examine integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants due to higher costs and lack of experience with IGCC plants are currently in operation. Similarly, HFO fueled boiler steam plants were not included, as HFO can also be used in low or medium speed diesel engines more cost effectively. 8.2.1 Pulverized Coal Fired Steam Plant
PC plants are the most common electricity generation unit throughout the world. The PC plants normally use bituminous coal, sub-bituminous coal, or lignite as fuel. They can also use petroleum coke, oil shale, or tar sands as fuel. The fuel is pulverized before being ignited. The non-combustible matter in the fuel is ash which is removed as fly ash from the flue gas, and bottom ash which is removed from the bottom of the furnace. There are many variations in the design of a PC boiler, but the overall concept is the same. Variations in the design may include front wall-fired vs. opposed wall-fired vs. tangentially-fired, all indicating how the burners are arranged in the boiler. Other alternative arrangements include cyclones and turbo, grate, cell or wet-bottom arrangement of the boiler; NOx emissions control through low NOx burners, over fire air, and further NOx reduction using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR); control of particulates, accomplished through dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet ESP or bag filters (bag houses); and type of SOx removal using wet or dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) method. PC boilers used in power generation are normally classified based on the steam conditions (pressure and temperature) entering the steam turbine. PC plants designed to have steam conditions below pressure at the critical point of water (about 22.1 MPa-abs or about 3,200 pounds per square inch) but above the saturation temperature of steam (374 C or 705 F) are referred to as subcritical PC plants, while plants designed above this critical point are referred to as supercritical. Typical design steam conditions for sub critical plants are: 16.7 MPa/538 C for main steam and 538 C for reheat steam. Typical supercritical plant steam design conditions are: pressure >24.2 MPa and with main and reheat steam temperatures at 565 C. Ultra supercritical boilers generate steam at pressure >30 MPa and temperature >565 C. The steam generated in the PC boiler is used to drive a steam turbine generator. The turbine exhaust is condensed in a condenser and fed back to the PC boiler to make steam. This closed
8-4
steam boiler feedwater cycle is also referred to as Rankine cycle. The heat removed from the condensing steam in the condenser is rejected through a cooling tower, through once through cooling with cooling water from a lake, river, ocean, or in an air cooled condenser similar to radiator cooling. Typical efficiency of a subcritical coal fired power plant is in the range of 33-35%, whereas supercritical power plant efficiency is in the range of 37-40%. Table 8-1 lists performance and cost data for typical subcritical and supercritical coal plants. Table 8-1 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Conventional Coal Plants Plant Type >> Conventional Coal Plant 750 MW PC 100 MW PC 300 MW PC Coal Plant Coal Plant Coal Plant (SC) 100 300 750 60-80% Coal/lignite 9,700 0.88 10% 5% 30 2009 2,200 25-35 27 1.5-2.5 2 65-75% Coal/lignite 9,550 0.87 10% 5% 30 2009 2,000 20-30 25 1.5-2.5 1.9 70-80% Coal/lignite 9,400 0.87 10% 5% 30 2009 1,800 20-30 24 1.5-2.5 1.8
Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.2.2
Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yr yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh
Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler
Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion is a combustion technology where the solid fuel is suspended on upward-blowing jets of air during the combustion process. The result is a turbulent mixing of gas and solids. The tumbling action, much like a bubbling fluid, provides more effective fuel combustion reactions and heat transfer. CFB plants are more flexible than conventional PC plants in that they can be fired using a variety of solid fuel types and sizes and also have the flexibility of using fuels which are difficult to burn using conventional PC
technology. Another advantage of CFB plants is the possibility of achieving a low emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during combustion and the possibility of removing sulfur in the fuel in a simple manner, before it can convert to sulfur dioxide (SOx), by using limestone as bed material. The steam produced in a CFB boiler is subcritical and the steam cycle is similar to a subcritical PC boiler plant. The efficiency of CFB plant is similar to PC plant, about 33%. Table 8-2 lists typical cost and performance data for three CFB plant capacities. Table 8-2 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for CFB Plants Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.2.3 Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh Coal fired CFB 10 MW 25 MW 50 MW CFB CFB CFB 10 25 50 60-80% 60-80% 60-80% Coal/ Waste Coal/ Coke 10,500 10,300 10,000 0.95 0.93 0.91 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 30 30 30 2009 2550 30-45 35 3-5 4 2009 2000 30-40 35 2-4 3 2009 1800 25-30 27 2-4 3
A gas turbine, also called a combustion turbine, is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a flow of combustion gas. It has an air compressor coupled to a turbine, and a combustion chamber in-between. Energy is added to the gas stream in the combustor, where air is mixed with fuel and ignited. Combustion increases the temperature, velocity and volume of the gas flow. This is directed through a nozzle over the turbine blades, spinning the turbine and powering the compressor and delivering excess energy to the generator. Energy is extracted in the form of shaft power, compressed air and thrust, in any combination, and used to power aircraft, trains, ships, generators, and even tanks. Gas turbines are described thermodynamically by the Brayton cycle, in which air is compressed isentropically (constant entropy), combustion occurs at constant pressure, and expansion over the turbine occurs isentropically back to the starting pressure.
8-6
As with all cyclic heat engines, higher combustion temperature means greater efficiency. The limiting factor is the ability of the steel, nickel, ceramic, or other materials that make up the engine to withstand heat and pressure. Most turbines also try to recover exhaust heat, which otherwise is wasted energy. Recuperators are heat exchangers that pass exhaust heat to the compressed air, prior to combustion. Mechanically, gas turbines are considerably less complex than internal combustion piston engines due to fewer moving part: the shaft/compressor/turbine/alternative-rotor assembly. However, the required precision manufacturing for components and temperature resistant alloys necessary for high efficiency often makes the construction of a combustion turbine more complicated. The principal environmental concerns associated with gas-fired combustion turbines are emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). Fuel oil operation may produce sulfur dioxide. Nitrogen oxide abatement is accomplished by use of dry low-NOx combustors and a selective catalytic reduction system. CO emissions are typically controlled by use of an oxidation catalyst. No special controls for particulates and sulfur oxides are used since only trace amounts are produced when operating on natural gas. The efficiency of combustion turbine depends on compressor pressure ratio, gas firing temperature, and if any of the exhaust heat is recovered. Typical efficiencies of the simple cycle gas turbines range from 28-35%. The LMS100 system combines frame and aeroderivative gas turbine technology for gas fired power generation. This new gas turbine provides cyclic capability without maintenance impact, high simple cycle efficiency, fast starts, high availability and reliability, but at higher capital cost. The unique feature of LMS100 is the use of intercooling within the compression section of the gas turbine, leveraging technology that has been used extensively in the gas and air compressor industry. Table 8-3 list typical performance and cost estimates for simple cycle gas turbines, including the new LMS100. Table 8-3 Typical Performance and Cost Estimates for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) (HHV) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Simple Cycle Combustion Gas Turbine Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr 20 MW GT 50 MW GT LMS 100 20 50 100 10% 10% 20-40% NG / Distillate/Diesel 11,900 0.54 4% 4% 30 2009 11,100 0.51 4% 4% 30 2009 8,900 0.41 4% 4% 30 2009
8-7
Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.2.4
Simple Cycle Combustion Gas Turbine Units $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh 20 MW GT 500-700 15-20 17 5 5 50 MW GT 450-650 15-20 17 4 4 LMS 100 700-800 10-20 15 2-4 3
Combined Cycle Combustion Gas Turbine
In a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant, a gas turbine generator generates electricity and the waste heat in the exhaust gas is used to make steam to generate additional electricity via a steam turbine; this last step enhances the efficiency of electricity generation. A combined-cycle gas turbine power plant consists of one or more gas turbine generators equipped with heat recovery steam generators to capture heat from the gas turbine exhaust. Steam produced in the heat recovery steam generators ((HSRGs) powers a steam turbine generator to produce additional electric power. Use of the otherwise wasted heat in the turbine exhaust gas results in high thermal efficiency compared to other combustion based technologies. Combined-cycle plants currently entering service can achieve 48 -50% efficiency (on HHV basis) in converting the chemical energy in the natural gas into electricity. Additional efficiency can be gained in combined heat and power (CHP) applications or cogeneration by bleeding steam from the heat recovery steam generator, steam turbine, or turbine exhaust to serve direct thermal loads. A single-train combined-cycle plant consists of one gas turbine generator, a heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine generator (1 x 1 configuration). Using FA-class combustion turbines - the most common technology in use for large combined-cycle plants - this configuration can produce about 270 megawatts at reference standard (International Organization for Standardization, or ISO) conditions. Increasingly common are plants with two or even three gas turbine generators and heat recovery steam generators feeding a single, proportionally larger steam turbine generator. Larger plant sizes result in economies of scale for construction and operation, and designs using multiple combustion turbines provide improved part-load efficiency. A 2 x 1 configuration using FA-class technology will produce up to 540 megawatts at ISO conditions. Advantage of combined cycle plant is that additional peaking capacity can be obtained by use of various power augmentation features at nominal additional cost, such as inlet air chilling and duct firing (direct combustion of natural gas in the heat recovery steam generator). For example, an additional 20 to 50 megawatts can be gained from a single-train plant by use of duct firing. Though the incremental thermal efficiency of duct firing is lower than that of the base combinedcycle plant, the incremental cost is low and the additional electrical output can be valuable during peak load periods.
8-8
Gas turbines can operate on either gaseous or liquid fuels. Pipeline natural gas is the fuel of choice because of historically low and relatively stable prices, deliverability and low air emissions. Distillate fuel oil can be used as a backup fuel, however, its use for this purpose has become less common in recent years because of additional emissions of sulfur oxides, deleterious effects on catalysts for the control of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, the periodic testing required to ensure proper operation on fuel oil, and increased turbine maintenance associated with fuel oil operation. It is now more common to ensure fuel availability by securing firm gas transportation. As with combustion turbines, the principal environmental concerns associated with gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbines are emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO); and emission abetment is achieved through SCR for the NOx and an oxidation catalyst for the CO. Fairly significant quantities of water are required for cooling the steam condenser and may be an issue in arid areas. Water consumption can be reduced by use of dry (closed-cycle) cooling, though with cost and efficiency penalties. Gas-fired combined-cycle plants produce less carbon dioxide per unit energy output than other fossil fuel technologies because of the relatively high thermal efficiency of the technology and the high hydrogen-carbon ratio of methane (the primary constituent of natural gas). Because of high thermal efficiency, low initial cost, high reliability, relatively low gas prices, and low air emissions, combined-cycle gas turbines have been the new resource of choice for bulk power generation. Other attractive features include significant operational flexibility, the availability of relatively inexpensive power augmentation for peak period operation and relatively low carbon dioxide production. Table 8-4 lists typical performance and cost data for combined cycle plant. Table 8-4 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Combined Cycle Plants Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) (HHV) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr Units MWe % Combined Cycle GT 100 MW 300 MW Comb Cycle Comb Cycle 100 300 40-80% 40-80% NG / Distillate/Diesel 8,000-8,300 0.38 4% 4% 30 2009 7,800-8,000 0.37 4% 4% 30 2009
8-9
Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.2.5 Units $/kW $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh
Combined Cycle GT 100 MW 300 MW Comb Cycle Comb Cycle 1,000-1,250 950-1,100 25-35 20-30 30 25 2-3 2 2 2
Medium and Low Speed Internal Combustion Engines
Diesel and gas engines (both characterized as internal combustion [IC] engines) can accommodate power generation needs over a wide size range, from few kW to large marine size engine with capacity up to 50 MW. Advantages of IC engines are low initial cost, modularity, ease of installation and reliability. This has led to their extensive use in power generation, and is preferred source for electricity generation in a small island grid set-up. . A typical configuration is an engine/generator set, where diesel or gas fired engines similar to engines used in the transportation sector are deployed in a stationary application for power generation. In many countries, slower speed diesel engines burning heavier and more polluting oils (for example, residual oil or mazout) are used. A diesel generator includes the core diesel engine (prime mover) and generator, and some auxiliary equipment such as equipment to support fuel-feed, air intake and exhaust, cooling, lubrication, and starting. A diesel generator has an efficiency of 35-45 percent, and can use a range of low-cost fuels, including light oil, heavy oil, residual oil and even palm or coconut oil, in addition to diesel. However, since the diesel equipment is heavier than a gasoline engine generator, it is mostly deployed in stationary applications. A diesel engine also has a wide capacity range, with grid connected base load engines, capacity range from 0.5 MW to 50 MW. Table 8-5 lists typical performance and cost data for diesel engine generators. Table 8-5 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Diesel Engines Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh Medium Speed Diesel 5 MW 10 MW MSD MSD 5 10 40-60% 40-60% NG/FO/ HFO 8,400 8,200 0.56 0.57 Low Speed Diesel 20 MW LSD 20 60-75% NG/FO/ HFO 7,800 0.53
8-10
Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.3 Units % % yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh
Medium Speed Diesel 5 MW 10 MW MSD MSD 12% 12% 8% 8% 30 30 2009 450-600 25-35 30 4-7 6 2009 450-600 25-35 30 3-6 5
Low Speed Diesel 20 MW LSD 12% 6% 30 2009 480-550 20-30 25 3-6 5
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES POWER PLANT COSTS AND PERFORMANCE
For the Study, we limited our evaluation to gird connected utility scale commercially ready renewable technologies. The bullet list below presents the renewable energy technologies we included in our evaluation. Wind turbines Geothermal Small and mini hydro (<30 MW) Solar photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) Biomass power (including biogas/landfill gas and municipal waste)
The following sections briefly describe each of these technologies and summarize their cost and performance parameters. Figure 8-2 includes estimated capital cost ranges for renewable energy power plants as well as fossil fuel based plants. Far more so than for the fossil fuel based plants, renewable energy power plant costs are sitespecific. One can bring fossil fuel to locations where no fossil resources exist. Geothermal and hydro resources exist only in certain locations and cannot be transported economically. The wind blows and the sun shines everywhere, but the locations where their intensity is high enough for economic exploitation for power generation are limited. Biomass and municipal waste have relatively low energy density, with a limited range over which they can be transported economically. Landfill gas is typically available in small quantities at specific sites and is not suitable for transportation. Therefore we emphasize that the cost and performance estimates presented below are based on plants built at sites where the resource is good and site development is not unusually expensive.
8-11
Where applicable, we have presented a range of cost and performance parameters as well as a selected point for economic evaluation of the renewable option. 8.3.1 Wind Turbines
Wind turbines are used to generate electricity from the kinetic power of the wind. Historically they were more frequently used as a mechanical device to turn machinery. There are two main kinds of wind generators, those with a vertical axis, and those with a horizontal axis. Horizontalaxis wind turbines typically either have two or three blades. These three-bladed wind turbines are operated "upwind," with the blades facing into the wind and the supporting tower downwind from the turbine. Utility-scale turbines range in size from 100 kilowatts to as large as several megawatts. Larger turbines are grouped together into wind farms, which can be used to generate large amounts of electricity both onshore and offshore. Wind resource evaluation is a critical element in projecting turbine performance at a given site. The energy available in a wind stream is proportional to the cube of its speed, which means that doubling the wind speed increases the available energy by a factor of eight. Furthermore, the wind resource itself is seldom a steady, consistent flow. It varies with the time of day, season, height above ground, and type of terrain. In general, annual average wind speeds of 5 meters per second (11 miles per hour) are required for grid-connected applications. Wind power class 2 (Annual average wind speeds of 3 to 4 m/s or 7-9 mph may be adequate for non-connected electrical and mechanical applications such as battery charging and water pumping. Wind resources exceeding this speed are available on many Caribbean Islands. Wind power density is a useful way to evaluate the wind resource available at a potential site. The wind power density, measured in watts per square meter, indicates how much energy is available at the site for conversion by a wind turbine. Classes of wind power density for two standard wind measurement heights are listed in Table 8-6. Selection of wind turbine size will depend on wind resources available for the location. For example, a wind power class 3 site has annual average wind speed of 6.4 7.0 m/s at 50 m hub height. When those wind speeds are applied to the Gamesa wind turbine performance curve in Figure 8-4, the 850 kW wind turbine would produce of 250 to 280 kW, or corresponding to 29% to 33% of capacity. Of course, wind speeds will vary from 0 m/s to over 25 m/s and corresponding wind turbine output will vary from 0 to 850 kW. Because of the cubic relationship of wind speed to wind energy, having a range of wind speeds that average (say) 7.0 m/s tends to produce higher average output than having the average wind speed all the time. At typical average wind speeds, output increases more when wind speed increases by 1.0 m/s than output decreases when wind speed decreases 1.0 m/s. However, output is limited by the maximum capacity of the wind turbine, which has an opposing effect. Thus, the wind power class provide a guideline for sizing the wind turbine and an estimate for annual power output and capacity factor for a given site. Wind power class 3 and higher are available on many Caribbean Islands, making these islands suitable for wind power development.
8-12
Selection of wind turbine size will depend on the wind resources available for the location. Wind resources are classified based on wind speed. Table 8-6 provides wind class and wind power associated with the corresponding wind speed at 10 m and 50 m hub height. Table 8-6 Wind Class and Corresponding Wind Speed and Wind Power Wind Power Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Speed, m/s @ 10 m <4.4 4.4 - 5.1 5.1 -5.6 5.6 - 6.0 6.0 -6.4 6.4 - 7.0 >7.0 Wind Power Density, W/m2) <100 100 - 150 150 - 200 200 - 250 250 - 300 300 - 400 >400 Speed, m/s @ 50 m <5.6 5.6 - 6.4 6.4 - 7.0 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.8 >8.8 Wind Power Density, W/m2) <200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500 500 - 600 600 - 800 >800
Figure 8-3 shows internals of a typical utility scale wind turbine. The major parts of the wind turbine and its functions are: Anemometer: Measures the wind speed and transmits wind speed data to the controller. Blades: Most turbines have either two or three blades. Wind blowing over the blades causes the blades to "lift" and rotate. Brake: A disc brake, which can be applied mechanically, electrically, or hydraulically to stop the rotor in emergencies. Controller: The controller starts up the machine at wind speeds of about 8 to 16 miles per hour (mph) and shuts off the machine at about 55 mph. Turbines do not operate at wind speeds above about 55 mph because they might be damaged by the high winds. Gear box: Gears connect the low-speed shaft to the high-speed shaft and increase the rotational speeds from about 30 to 60 rotations per minute (rpm) to about 1000 to 1800 rpm, the rotational speed required by most generators to produce electricity. The gear box is a costly (and heavy) part of the wind turbine and engineers are exploring "direct-drive" generators that operate at lower rotational speeds and don't need gear boxes. Generator: Usually an off-the-shelf induction generator that produces 60-cycle AC electricity. High-speed shaft: Drives the generator. Low-speed shaft: The rotor turns the low-speed shaft at about 30 to 60 rotations per minute.
8-13
Figure 8-3 Wind Turbine Components 2 Nacelle: The nacelle sits atop the tower and contains the gear box, low- and high-speed shafts, generator, controller, and brake. Some nacelles are large enough for a helicopter to land on. Pitch: Blades are turned, or pitched, out of the wind to control the rotor speed and keep the rotor from turning in winds that are too high or too low to produce electricity. Rotor: The blades and the hub together are called the rotor. Tower: Towers are made from tubular steel (shown here), concrete, or steel lattice. Because wind speed increases with height, taller towers enable turbines to capture more energy and generate more electricity. Wind direction: This is an "upwind" turbine, so-called because it operates facing into the wind. Other turbines are designed to run "downwind," facing away from the wind. Wind vane: Measures wind direction and communicates with the yaw drive to orient the turbine properly with respect to the wind. Yaw drive: Upwind turbines face into the wind; the yaw drive is used to keep the rotor facing into the wind as the wind direction changes. Downwind turbines don't require a yaw drive; the wind blows the rotor downwind. Yaw motor: Powers the yaw drive. Typical output from a large wind turbine is presented in Figure 8-4.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US DOE - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_how.html#e
8-14
Gamesa G58 850 kW

900 800 700 600 kW 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 m/s 15 20 25
Figure 8-4 Output Profile Wind Speed vs. kW output for Gamesa G58 Turbine3 Table 8-7 provides typical performance and cost data for wind turbines. Table 8-7 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Wind Turbines Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (range) Plant Capacity Factor (point) Plant Heat Rate (rounded) Fuel Type CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point)
3
Small Wind Turbine 0.5 MW 0.5 20-25% 25% N/A None 0 4% 8% 30 2009 1,600-2,000 40-70 55 3-5 4
Large Wind Turbine 1.5 MW 1.5 25-32% 32% N/A None 0 4% 8% 30 2009 1,250-1,500 25-40 35 2-3 2
Units MWe % % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh
Gamesa (Spain) http://www.gamesa.es/en
8-15
8.3.2
Geothermal Power Plants
Geothermal energy is energy derived from the natural heat of the earth. The earths temperature varies widely, and geothermal energy is usable for a wide range of temperatures from room temperature to well over 200 C. For commercial use, a geothermal reservoir capable of providing hot water and steam resources on a consistent basis is necessary. Geothermal reservoirs are generally classified as being either low temperature (<150 C) or high temperature (>150 C). Generally speaking, the high temperature reservoirs are the ones suitable for, and sought out for commercial production of electricity. Geothermal reservoirs are found in geothermal systems which are regionally localized, geologic settings, where the earths naturally occurring heat flow is near enough to the earths surface to bring steam or hot water to the surface. Two primary types of geothermal resources commercially developed are: 1. Naturally occurring hydrothermal resources Hydrothermal reservoirs consist of hot water and steam found in relatively shallow reservoirs, ranging from a few hundred to as much as 3,000 m in depth. Hydrothermal resources are the current focus of geothermal development because they are relatively inexpensive to exploit. A hydrothermal resource is inherently permeable, which means that fluids can flow from one part of the reservoir to another, and can also flow into and from wells that penetrate the reservoir. In hydrothermal resources, water descends to considerable depth in the crust where it is heated. The heated water then rises until it becomes either trapped beneath impermeable strata, forming a bounded reservoir, or reaches the surface as a hot spring or steam vent. The rising water brings heat from the deeper parts of the earth to locations relatively near the surface. 2. Engineered geothermal systems A second type of geothermal resource is the engineered geothermal systems (EGS), sometimes referred to as Hot Dry Rocks (HDR). These resources are found relatively deep in masses of rock that contain little or no steam, and are not very permeable. They exist in geothermal gradients, where the vertical temperature profile changes are greater than average (>50C/km). A commercially attractive EGS would involve prospecting for hot rocks at depths of 4,000 m or more. To exploit the EGS resource, a permeable reservoir must be created by hydraulic fracturing, and water must be pumped through the fractures to extract heat from the rock. Most of the EGS/HDR projects to date have been essentially experimental; but there is future commercial potential. Commercial exploitation of geothermal systems is constrained by two factors: Geothermal exploration, as with most resource extraction ventures, is inherently risky. Geothermal power systems are difficult to plan because what lies beneath the ground is only poorly understood at the onset of development. It may take significant work to prove that an adequate resource exists in a particular field, and many exploration efforts have failed altogether. Both exploration and development require substantial specialized technical capacity and financial commitment.
8-16
Technology Description Dry Steam: When resources produce pure steam, the steam drives a turbine and generates power. However, these resources are rare; only few such fields have been discovered to date. The only commercially developed steam field in the United States is The Geysers, located in Northern California, which began the commercial production of electricity in 1960. A condenser cools the steam to water, which passes through a cooling tower and then back as cooled water to the condenser, and finally the remaining water is injected into the reservoir. Flash Steam: Geothermal reservoirs that contain hot, pressurized water are much more common and provide energy for all US geothermal power production except The Geysers. Flash steam power plants use resources that are typically hotter than 200C. Before fluids enter the plant, the pressure of the fluid is reduced until it begins to boil, or flash. This process produces both steam and water. The steam subsequently is used to drive the turbine. The steam may be condensed as described above and be injected back into the reservoir. Figure 8-5 is schematic of flash steam power plant at Bouillante, Guadeloupe, which cools the steam with sea water and returns the condensed steam, sea water, and other water streams to the ocean. Binary Cycle: This rapidly expanding technology uses geothermal resources with temperatures as low as 90C. Rather than flashing the geothermal fluid to produce steam, this type of power plant uses heat exchangers to transfer the heat of the water to another working fluid that vaporizes at lower temperatures. This vapor drives a turbine to generate power, after which it is condensed and circulated back to the heat exchangers. This type of geothermal plant has superior environmental characteristics compared to the others because the hot water (which tends to contain dissolved salts and minerals) is never exposed to the atmosphere before it is injected back into the reservoir. Binary power plants were introduced in the mid-1980s.
8-17
Figure 8-5 Flash Steam Geothermal Power Plant Schematic4 Large geothermal plants can generally operate as base-loaded facilities with capacity factors comparable to or higher than conventional generation (90 percent CF). Binary plants in mini-grid applications will have lower capacity factors (30-70 percent), due mainly to limitations in local demand. Because they operate in a closed-loop mode, binary plants have no appreciable emissions, except for very slight leakages of hydrocarbon working fluids. Some emissions of H2S are possible (no more than 0.015 kg/MWh), but H2S removal equipment can easily eliminate any problem. CO2 emissions are small enough to make geothermal power a low CO2 emitter relative to fossil fuel plants. Table 8-8 provides typical performance and cost data for geothermal power plants.
Eastern Caribbean Geothermal Energy Project Roseau, Dominica March 2007; ADEME (French Agency for Environment and Energy Management) Renewable Energy Division
8-18
Table 8-8 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Geothermal Plants Plant Type >> Units MWe % Geothermal 5-80 MW 20 80% None kJ/kWh N/A Mt/MWh 0 % 10% % 10% yrs 30 yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh 2009 2,800-3,400 70-90 80 3-5 4
Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical] Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.3.3 Hydro Power Plants
Hydro power plants convert the potential and kinetic energy of water into electricity. Hydro power plants include those operated as part of pumped storage facilities. Although the introduction of low volume continuous flow systems have made this technology readily applicable in small streams, poor agricultural practices and inadequate forest management techniques have reduced the potential use of this energy source, as flows in rivers and streams in many islands of the Caribbean have been reduced. With the exception of the larger Caribbean countries that still have some rivers of note, only Dominica, and to a lesser extent Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, may be able to exploit this energy source economically. At present, grid connected hydroelectricity is generated in Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Saint Vincent. Table 8-9 provides typical performance and cost data for small hydro power plants.
8-19
Table 8-9 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Small Hydro Plants Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.3.4 Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plant Parabolic Troughs Central Receiver Compact Linear Fresnel Reflectors (CLFR) Dish Stirling Engine Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh Small Hydro 30 50% Renewable N/A 0 5% 5% 30 2009 2000-2800 30-50 40 3-5 4
The four commercially available CSP technologies are:
We provide below brief descriptions of these technologies. Parabolic Trough Technology Parabolic trough plants use a field of linear parabolic collectors to redirect, and concentrate, sunlight on a tube receiver located at the focal line of the parabolic mirrors. Each collector, which has a nominal width and length of 5-5.7 m and 50-150 m, respectively, tracks the sun by rotation about a horizontal axis. The receiver is a stainless steel tube, to which is applied a selective surface ceramic coating to reduce radiation and reflective losses. The receiver tube is also enclosed in an evacuated glass jacket to reduce convection losses. The nominal solar concentration ratio for a trough is 80. The heat transport fluid is a synthetic oil mixture of diphenyl oxide/ether and biphenyl, which has a maximum operating temperature of 390-395 C. A conventional steam generator produces live steam at nominal conditions of 100 bar and 385-
8-20
375 C. For the Rankine cycle reheat steam can also be produced at a similar temperature range of 385-375 C. Figure 8-6 shows the layout of parabolic troughs at SEGS VII plant at Kramer Junction, CA.
Figure 8-6 Parabolic Trough Collector Plant Nine parabolic trough plants, with design parameters similar to those described above and with a combined output of 354 MWe, are currently in operation in southern California. These plants are called Solar Electric Generation Station (also referred to as SEGS I through SEGS IX) and range in size from 14 MWe to 80 MWe. Central Receiver CSP Plant Central receiver plants use a field of large mirrors (heliostats) to redirect, and concentrate, sunlight on a heat exchanger (receiver) located at the top of a tower. The heliostat, each of which has nominal reflector area from 6 m2 to 100 m2, is dependent on tower height and receiver capacity. The heliostats focus on the receiver and track the sun by a combination of rotations about vertical and horizontal axes. The heliostats are arranged in a roughly circular layout around the tower, such that when viewed from the top of the tower, the heliostats field mimics the shape of a large parabolic bowl. The receiver is composed of 16 to 24 flat panels, located side-by-side to form a cylinder. The geometry of the heliostats, and their placement in the field, are such that the flux from the sun is concentrated by a factor of 750 to 1,000 at the surface of the receiver. The heat transport fluid (HTF) for the plant can be water or a mixture of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, or air, CO2, or synthetic oil. However, water and molten salt seem to be preferred HTF from both practical application and cost. If water is used as HTF, it is converted directly to steam and superheated in a superheater section of the receiver to 450-550 C. If molten salt is used as HTF, the liquid salt is pumped from a cold storage tank up the tower to the receiver, where it is heated from an inlet temperature of about 288 C to an outlet temperature of about 566 C. The salt is returned to a hot storage tank; from
here, it is pumped through a steam generator, and then returned to the cold storage tank. The steam generator produces steam at nominal conditions of 125 bar and 540 C, and reheat steam also at a temperature of 540 C. Figure 8-7 shows the general layout of a central receiver system.
Figure 8-7 10 MW Solar 2 Project near Barstow, CA Several central receiver demonstration projects have been built and tested in the United States, France, Spain, and Japan and Israel over the past 30 years. Receiver coolants have included water/steam, compressed air, sodium and potassium nitrate salt. The most recent, and largest, central receiver project built to date was the 10 MWe Solar Two project in Barstow, California. Plant startup was initiated in 1995, and the operation and test period was concluded in 1999. The design used a binary nitrate salt mixture as the receiver coolant, the thermal storage medium, and the steam generator heat transport fluid. Only two central receiver projects have been in commercial operation in Spain, PS-10 (10 MW tower) and PS-20 (20 MW tower); interest in the concept continues because commercial central receiver plants should provide energy at a cost perhaps 20 percent below that of a commercial trough project. The reasons for this assumption by many associated with central receiver development are as follows: The peak working fluid temperature in a central receiver plant is 566 C, as opposed to 393 C in a parabolic trough field. The higher fluid temperatures translate into a Rankine (steam) cycle efficiency of about 3-5 percentage points higher than that of a parabolic trough plant (33-37% vs. 37-41%). The nitrate salt should be less expensive than oil, and the temperature rise across the receiver is a favorable 278 C. This allows for a less expensive thermal storage system, which provides an economical means for extending the annual capacity factor of the plant to values as high as 70 percent. In contrast, the temperature rise across a parabolic trough
8-22
field is on the order of 105 C, which leads to a more expensive thermal storage system and limits the means for extending the capacity factor beyond about 55 percent. The capital cost of a heliostat field and receiver, on a $ per annual MWt basis, should be about 15 percent lower than that of a parabolic trough field. Mirrors and heliostat structure are simpler and easy to construct compared to elaborate design of parabolic trough, but cost of large central receiver and tower can be significant. Overall, the consensus of technical experts is that the central receiver plant should cost less.
In the United States, central receiver technology has not developed commercially beyond the demonstration plant stage because a minimum plant size of perhaps 100 MWe is required to provide electric energy at a cost below that of a parabolic trough plant. However, construction of a 100 MWe plant will require the successful operation of a receiver with a rating of 250 to 300 MWt, which is at least an order of magnitude greater in capacity than the largest receiver built to date. To validate such a receiver, a central receiver project will require a capital investment of $300 to $500 million and few commercial ventures are willing to take this risk, unless incentives or guarantees are provided by vendors and suppliers. Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) Technology The compact linear Fresnel reflector array system is linear like a parabolic trough collector, but it has some major differences over troughs which allow significant cost reductions, such as a long focal length which allows elastically bent flat standard glass reflector to be used. The array technology promoted by Ausra is of the linear Fresnel type and was originally developed at the University of Sydney (Mills and Morrison, 1999). It is called the Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology. In this approach, ground level reflector rows aim solar beam radiation at a downward facing receiver mounted on multiple elevated parallel tower lines. The technology is innovative in that it allows reflectors to have choice of two receivers so that a configuration can be chosen which offers minimal mutual blocking of adjacent reflectors and minimum ground usage. However, there are also many supporting engineering innovations in the commercial product, including highly rigid space frame mirror supports with 360 rotation capability, long horizontal direct steam generation cavity receivers, and array fine tracking control electronics. Ausra, the promoters of CLFR array design is planning to incorporate high volume production elements to reduce engineering cost. Figures 8-8 shows the Ausra and Sky Fuel CLFR lay out concept. Although some of the cost advantages of the CLFR array system over the current trough technology are easily recognized and can be implemented, the general issue of overall standalone solar plant design are not addressed well enough to develop performance and cost model.
8-23
Figure 8-8 Ausra and Sky Fuel CLFR Lay Outs Parabolic Dish with Stirling Engine Parabolic dishes use a group of segmented mirrors to redirect and concentrate sunlight on a cavity receiver located at the focal point of the dish. The average concentration ratio at the aperture of the receiver is 3,000:1, and the peak concentration is about 12,500:1. The high concentration ratios permit the use of a small receiver, which reduces the receiver convection and radiation losses. As might be expected, the high ratios also dictate the use of a robust mirror support structure and an accurate drive mechanism. The receiver cavity is lined with metal tubes. Hydrogen, at a nominal pressure of 300 bar, is both the receiver coolant and the working fluid in the Stirling engine. The hydrogen is heated to about 700 C in the receiver; it then passes to a kinematic Stirling engine, where it expands to perform mechanical work. Heat is rejected from the engine through a hydrogen-to-air heat exchanger. The cooled hydrogen is returned to the engine, where it is compressed, and it then passes back to the receiver to be reheated. With todays limited commercial market, the capacities of the reflector and the receiver are determined by the sizes of the existing engines; i.e., a 36 m2 dish is used with a 9 kWe Solo Kleinmotoren engine, and a 88 m2 dish is used with a 25 kWe Kokums engine. The optimum commercial power rating is believed to be in the range of 25 kWe to 35 kWe based on the practicalities of meeting stringent pointing accuracy requirements on large structures subjected to moderately high wind loads. Several receiver designs have been tested over the past 25 years. The goal of the receiver designs is to accommodate the low cycle fatigue inherent in the daily thermal cycles, and to tolerate the large temperature gradients within the cavity when the centroid of the concentrated solar beam does not align properly with the center of the aperture. Tested designs include the following: sodium heat pipes, with the sodium condensing on several small hydrogen cooled condensers; sodium pool boiler, with the sodium condensing on one remote hydrogen cooled condenser; and a cavity lined with nickel alloy tubes, cooled by compressed hydrogen. The sodium cooled designs were perhaps the best engineering solution, as very large heat transfer rates could be established, and the receiver could readily accommodate the inevitable off-center
8-24
flux distributions. However, the required receiver geometries proved too complex to fabricate at a reasonable cost. As a result, the tubed receiver has been found to offer the best combination of reliability, manufacturing feasibility, and cost. In concert with the receiver development, several reflector designs have been tested in the United States and in Europe, including the following two: A stretched metal membrane concept, using two thin membranes stretched across the front and the back of a metal support ring. A partial vacuum, drawn between the two membranes, pushed the front (and the back) membrane into a pseudo-parabolic dish shape. Concepts using one large, and numerous small rings, have been tested. Reflectors materials have included thick glass mirrors, thin glass mirrors, and silvered polymers. Drives have included both orthogonal drives located at the center of the reflector, and rim drives located at the periphery of the reflector. Various combinations of steel trusses and structural mirror gore designs, all with orthogonal drives located at the center of the reflector.
The currently favored approach is perhaps the oldest: a conventional steel truss structure supporting metal gores with a thin glass silver mirror reflector. A representative design is illustrated in Figure 8-9.
Figure 8-9 Parabolic Dish with Stirling Engine The current generation of dish/engine designs offers the following performance characteristics: design point solar-to-electric conversion efficiency of about 30 percent; annual solar-to-electric conversion efficiency of 23 percent; and an annual capacity factor for a site in the Mojave Desert of 25 percent.
8-25
Solar Thermal Energy Storage A distinct advantage of solar thermal power plants compared with other renewable energies, such as PV and wind, is the possibility of using relatively cheap storage systems that store the thermal energy itself. Storing electricity is much more expensive. With thermal energy storage (TES), the system can collect energy in order to shift its delivery to a later time, or to smooth out the plant output during intermittently cloudy weather conditions. Hence, the operation of a solar thermal power plant can be extended beyond periods of no solar radiation without the need to burn fossil fuel. Times of mismatch between energy supply by the sun and energy demand can be reduced. Figure 8-10 shows the layout of a solar parabolic trough plant with thermal energy storage.
S olar Field Solar Superheater Boiler (optional) Hot Salt Tank Steam Turbine
Condenser
Oil-to-Salt Heat Exchanger
Fuel
S team Gener ator Solar P reheater Solar Reheater Expansion Vessel
Deaerator
F eedwater Heaters
Cold Salt Tank
Figure 8-10 Two Tank Thermal Storage System The principle options for using TES in a solar thermal system highly depend on the daily and yearly variation of radiation and on the electricity demand profile. The main options are: Buffering Delivery period displacement Delivery period extension Yearly averaging
The goal of a buffer is to smooth out transients in the solar input caused by passing clouds, which can significantly affect operation of a solar electric generating system (SEGS) plant. Delivery period displacement requires the use of a larger storage capacity. The storage shifts some or all of the energy collected during periods with sunshine to a later period with higher electricity demand or tariffs. The typical size of TES system ranges from 3 to 6 hours of full load operation.
8-26
The TES increases the solar fraction and requires larger solar fields than a system without storage. Yearly averaging of electricity production requires much larger TES and solar fields. A key issue in the design of a thermal energy storage system is its thermal capacity - the amount of energy that it can store and provide. However, selection of the appropriate system depends on many cost-benefit considerations. Table 8-10 provides typical performance and cost data for solar trough plants with and without storage. Table 8-10 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Solar Trough Plants Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor (typical) Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.3.5 Solar PV Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh Solar CSP Solar CSP 50 16% None N/A 0 8% 5% 30 2009 3,200-3,600 50-60 56 8-12 10 Solar CSP CSP w 6 Hr Storage 50 24% None N/A 0 8% 5% 30 2009 4,200-4,500 70-80 74 8-10 9
The photovoltaic process converts solar energy directly into electricity. Photovoltaic cells are made from materials that are neither insulators nor conductors of electricity semi-conductors such as silicon. The electrons in a semiconductor material have a defined range of energy levels, or bands, partially filled with electrons, creating a negative charge. Electrons move down an external circuit in the form of light-generated electricity: the photovoltaic effect. Current PV cells convert 10-16% of the incident energy of sunlight to electricity. Some of the new materials and improvements in cell design promises to increase the conversion efficiency to 20-30% range. PV cell size determines the amount of current and power it is capable of
8-27
producing, at most about 0.5 Volts (V). Number of these cells can be connected in series to make a PV module. Typical PV module output can range between 20 -175 Watts (W). PV modules can themselves be connected together to make arrays that could potentially supply few kW to several MW of power. The residential system output is normally in the range of 250 W to 2 kW; where as commercial systems normally are sized for 2.5 kW to 20 kW. Technology Description and Status A PV cell consists of two or more thin layers of semi-conducting material. Most commonly used semi conducting material is silicon. When the silicon is exposed to light, electrical charges are generated which can be conducted away by metal contacts as direct current (DC). The electrical output from a single cell is small, so multiple cells are connected together and encapsulated (usually behind glass) to form a module or panel. The PV module is the principal building block of a PV system and any number of modules can be connected together to give the desired electrical output. PV equipment has no moving parts and as a result requires minimal maintenance. Mono-crystalline Silicon Cells - Made using cells saw-cut from a single cylindrical crystal of silicon, this is the most efficient of the photovoltaic (PV) technologies. The principal advantage of mono-crystalline cells is their high efficiencies, typically around 15-20%, but the manufacturing process required to produce mono-crystalline silicon is complicated, resulting in higher costs than other technologies. Multi-crystalline Silicon Cells - Made from cells cut from an ingot of melted and recrystallized silicon. In the manufacturing process, molten silicon is cast into ingots of polycrystalline silicon; these ingots are then saw-cut into very thin wafers and assembled into complete cells, creating a granular texture. Multi-crystalline cells are cheaper to produce than mono-crystalline ones, due to the simpler manufacturing process. However, they tend to be less efficient, with average efficiencies of around 12-14%. Thick-film Silicon - Another multi-crystalline technology where the silicon is deposited in a continuous process onto a base material giving a fine grained, sparkling appearance. Like all crystalline PV, this is encapsulated in a transparent insulating polymer with a tempered glass cover and usually bound into an aluminum frame. Amorphous Silicon - Amorphous silicon cells are composed of silicon atoms in a thin homogenous layer rather than a crystal structure. Amorphous silicon absorbs light more effectively than crystalline silicon, so the cells can be thinner. For this reason, amorphous silicon is also known as a "thin film" PV technology. Amorphous silicon can be deposited on a wide range of substrates, both rigid and flexible, which makes it ideal for curved surfaces and "foldaway" modules. Amorphous cells are, however, less efficient than crystalline based cells, with typical efficiencies of around 6%, but they are easier and therefore cheaper to produce. Their low cost makes them ideally suited for many applications where high efficiency is not required and low cost is important.
8-28
Other Thin Films - A number of other promising materials such as cadmium telluride (CdTe) and copper indium diselenide (CIS) are now being used for PV modules. The attraction of these technologies is that they can be manufactured by relatively inexpensive industrial processes in comparison to crystalline silicon technologies, yet they typically offer higher module efficiencies than amorphous silicon. PV Module - Since output from individual cell is small with maximum voltage less than 0.5 V, number of cells is put together in series to form a PV module. Figure 8-11 show the general arrangement of a typical PV module.
Figure 8-11 Typical PV Solar Module Typical PV System Configuration - The components typically required in a grid-connected small PV system for household or small commercial installations are illustrated in Figure 8-12 below.
Figure 8-12 Typical PV System Configuration
8-29
Other components in a typical grid-connected PV system are the array mounting structure and the various cables and switches needed to ensure that the PV generator can be isolated both from the building and from the grid. Table 8-11 provides performance and cost data for the residential and commercial size PV systems. Table 8-11 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for PV Systems Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plat Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) 8.3.6 Biomass Plant Units MWe % kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % Yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh Residential PV 2 kW PV 0.002 14-16% None N/A 0 2% 4% 20 2009 5,800-7,500 40-60 50 5 4-6 Commercial PV 500 kW PV 0.5 15-18% None N/A 0 2% 4% 20 2009 5,200-7,200 40-60 50 4 3-5
Biomass Resources: Biomass fuels are defined as non-fossil, carbon-based materials having the capability of being harnessed for energy. Essentially stored solar energy, biomass fuels fall into five general categories: Wood: Forestry wood; wood residues; milling residues; waste from logging operations. Agricultural Residues: Waste cellulose from farming operations or food processing, including: Bagasse; nuts and shells; rice husk; straw Energy Crops: Agricultural crops and trees grown specifically for energy production (Miscanthus, Reed canary grass, eucalyptus) Waste: Municipal solid waste (MSW); refuse-derived fuel; source separated organic waste; tire-derived fuel; vegetable, garden, and fruit waste; landfill gas. Dry animal waste, primarily from poultry, can be burned directly for heat and power. Wet manure can be digested to produce biogas.
8-30
Biofuels: Liquid fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are primarily used in transportation applications, but could also be burned to produce electricity
Solid Biomass Biomass is defined as any plant matter used directly as fuel or converted into other forms before combustion. Gas from Biomass Biogas is derived principally from the anaerobic fermentation of biomass and solid wastes and combusted to produce heat and/or power. Included in this category are landfill gas and sludge gas (sewage gas and gas from animal slurries) and other biogas. A second source of biogas is thermal gasification of biomass. Included here is the production of synthesis gas, either for subsequent combustion or for conversion to transportation fuels, hydrogen, fertilizers or chemicals (or a combination of these). Table 8-12 lists performance and cost data for the biomass and landfill gas (LFG) based power plants. Table 8-12 Typical Performance And Cost Estimates for Biomass and LFG Plants Plant Type >> Plant Parameters Plant Rating Net Plant Capacity Factor Fuel Type Plant Heat Rate (rounded) CO2 Emissions Planned Maintenance Rate Forced Maintenance Rate Plant Life Cost Estimates Year of Estimate Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost (range) Fixed O&M Cost (point) Variable O&M Cost (range) Variable O&M Cost (point) kJ/kWh Mt/MWh % % Yrs yr $/kW $/kW-yr $/kW-yr $/MWh $/MWh Units MWe % Biomass Plant Biomass 30 60% Biomass 14,400 0 15% 10% 30 2009 2000 40-45 42 4-6 4 LFG and Biogas 5 40% LFG 12,700 (0.05)1 15% 10% 302 2009 1000 35-40 37 4-6 5
Note 1: LFG can take credit for eliminating methane gas emissions from natural decomposition of biomass and other waste. Note 2: Plant life will depend on if the site is active or not active. At a not active site, LFG generation will decay in less than five years.
8-31
8.4
RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
In contrast to fossil fuels, renewable energy resources provide an inexhaustible supply of energy. The major sources of renewable energy for the Caribbean are solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal. For this study, only commercially demonstrated technology is evaluated, hence ocean and wave energy resources were not evaluated. As noted at the start of Section 8.3, renewable energy power plant costs are site-specific. Just as power plant costs depend on the quality of the available energy resource, how much energy can be considered available depends on the cost of the power plants. The power plant costs are based on plants built at sites where the resource is good and site development is not unusually expensive. We estimate the amount of renewable resource energy available considering the cost of power from each of the technologies. For example, we know that the sun shines everywhere in the Caribbean. However, frequent loud cover limits the hours of bright sunlight. The transient nature of clouds make it difficult to design a CSP plant without some storage as CSP technology concentrates direct solar insolation. Transient clouds pose a lesser problem for PV, which can also utilize diffused radiation, but reduces the annual energy PV plants can generate. Combining this with the capital cost of the PV plant, PV is not economically competitive at present with other technologies for central station power generation, as the screening analysis of Section 11 illustrates. CSP is closer to being economically competitive compared to distillate fueled power plants, but both PV and CSP would need some degree of fossil backup, the costs of which are not included. Therefore the size of the solar resource available for both PV and CSP could be considered to be zero. Nevertheless, Martinique has six MW of installed PV capacity, primarily as residential rooftop facilities selling to the utility at a rate mandated by the government, 400 Euros per MWH. The utility expects another 30 MW in the near future. Clearly, subsidies such as high feed-in tariffs for purchases of renewable energy, favorable tax treatment, and others can provide sufficient incentive to generate significant development. In addition, because PV is a proven, commercially available technology, some people choose to install PV on their rooftops even though it costs more than utility-supplied energy. The renewable technologies used for power generation consist of wind turbines, geothermal power plants, hydro turbines, biomass based gasifiers or steam boilers, landfill gas and biogas generators, concentrating solar thermal power plants, and solar photovoltaic power generation. 8.4.1 Wind
The wind patterns in the Caribbean are dominated by the northeast trade winds, and are a persistent feature of the region. The trade winds blow throughout the year, disturbed only at intervals during the summer by tropical disturbances and in winter by eastward moving Atlantic depressions. This wind pattern provides Caribbean islands the potential for a significant increase in wind powered electricity production. A number of wind farm projects are being implemented, making wind potentially the fastest growing renewable energy technology in the region over the next two decades.
8-32
Demonstration projects have been built such as the installation of a 120 kW vertical axis wind turbine in Antigua, and an 85 kW horizontal axis turbine in Montserrat. After these, other demonstration projects were considered for Barbados, Curacao and Jamaica. Wind turbines for grid electricity generation are presently operational in four Caribbean islands Cuba, Curacao, Guadeloupe and Jamaica. The wind turbines on Montserrat have recently been put out of operation by volcanic activity on the island. Four countries have had wind turbines installed that are no longer operational: Antigua, Barbados, Montserrat, and Trinidad and Tobago. The potential for wind power in the Caribbean is relatively large. For example, a study conducted by NREL (D. Elliot, Dominican Republic Resource Atlas Development, NREL CP500-2732) for Dominican Republic estimates that there is approximately 460 km2 area within DR with excellent wind generation potential at an estimated value of 6.9 MW/km2 for a total of 3,200 MW. Similarly, a study sponsored by APUA (Wind Energy Survey Antigua and Barbuda, Energy Engineering Corporation, November 2008) indicated that in Barbuda, the Highlands area offers the most promising wind farm site. At 33 meters above sea level, this plateau of 38 km2 can support 400 MW of wind turbines, generating 900 GWh per year, with little visual impact because the area is five km from population centers. It should be noted that wind is site dependent, and it is essential that detailed wind measurements should be conducted at potential sites to arrive at more accurate projections of the feasibility of economic wind power development in the region. 8.4.2 Geothermal
The islands of Saba and St. Eustatius (Statia) of the Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the French territories, Guadeloupe and Martinique, form part of the of the active volcanic arc of the Caribe Oriental and the Lesser Antilles. From Saba in the north to St. Vincent in the south, active volcanoes and surface hydrothermal manifestations exist on each of the islands. In the cases of Dominica and St. Lucia, intense surface hydrothermal activity marks the presence of high enthalpy geothermal systems: 230 degrees Celsius at Wotten Waven in Dominica (presently being evaluated by the French agency AFD) and 300 degrees Celsius at La Soufrire-Qualibou in St. Lucia. The thermal energy available in these volcanic islands makes them of interest for geothermal exploration. Estimates of geothermal resource availability vary from 450 MW to several thousand MW estimated by the Seismic Research Center at University of West Indies (Erouscilla P. Joseph, Seismic Research Unit, University of West Indies, St. Augustine). A small geothermal plant was installed in Guadeloupe in 1986 and was renovated and upgraded to 15 MW by 2004.
8-33
8.4.3
Solar PV and CSP
The US DOE estimate for average solar radiation in the Caribbean region is 200-300 W/m2 or approximately 2.2 -3.6 kWh/m2-day. NRELs is consistent: 200-300 W/m2 of solar insolation or about 2.5-3.2 kWh/m2-day of power production in the region. (In the southwest US, 6-7 kWh/m2-day of power generation might be achieved). PV is a proven commercial technology already being used in many applications, but not yet unsubsidized central station power generation. PV can generate from diffuse as well as direct normal insolation (DNI). PV panels can be installed on roof tops and other building structures, under those circumstances eliminating the need for undeveloped land, and is suitable for distributed (i.e., non grid connected or small scale) generation. No definitive studies of solar power development for the Caribbean region have been conducted, so Nexant developed its own estimate for the potential for PV generation. For a PV resource availability estimate, Nexant used the NREL estimate of solar insolation and power production. Nexant also used NREL methodology of assuming that 1% of the land area of the island is used for residential and commercial buildings. We estimate power generation potential from PV by assuming that PV panels can be installed on 10% of the roofs of these buildings, and those panels can achieve an average capacity factor of 15%. Nexant applied this scenario to estimate potential generation from PV for each island in the study, producing the values shown in Table 8-13. We emphasize that these values refer to resource availability, not current economic potential. Due to the high cost of PV power, significant penetration of PV generation in the region will require incentives such as tax credits or high feed-in tariffs. Due to tropical weather and cloud cover in the region, a CSP plant may not be practical solution for the islands. With a lower level of direct normal insolation (DNI), Nexant estimates that approximately 6-7.5 acres of land will be required per MW of a CSP plant. A CSP plant needs to be at least 15-20 MW to achieve reasonable economies of scale, which would require 90 150 acres (36 60 hectares) per plant. It may be difficult to locate enough single parcels of this size to support significant penetration, especially on the smaller islands. 8.4.4 Hydro Turbines, Biomass, Landfill Gas
Small Hydro Power Plants Hundreds of MW of hydro has already been developed in the Caribbean, and more is planned, especially in the Dominican Republic. The best geographical areas for exploiting small-scale hydro power are those where there is both steady river flows and elevation differences. The hill areas of countries with high year-round rainfall, such as the Caribbean islands, provide such an environment. Low-head turbines have been developed for small-scale exploitation of rivers where there is a small head but sufficient flow to provide adequate power. Hydro is highly sitespecific and, as for wind, it is essential that detailed studies be conducted at potential sites to arrive at more accurate projections of the feasibility of economic hydro development. Biomass and LFG
8-34
Biomass includes wood, agricultural waste, energy crops, and municipal waste. Biomass can be used as fuel in direct combustion, and gasification, and can be supplemented with conventional coal in power generation. Biomass generation can provide base load operation where a yearround supply of fuel is available. The Caribbean region does have biomass resources, however, no projects are in the pipeline and definitive estimates of power generation potential are not available. Currently, MSW disposal sites in the Caribbean do not have means to collect LFG generated. Large cities with land fill disposal should consider modification of existing land fill sites to collect and utilize LFG. As with wind and small hydro, biomass power generation potential is highly site-specific and it is essential that detailed studies be conducted at potential sites to arrive at more accurate projections of the feasibility of economic hydro development.
8-35
Table 8-13 Renewable Resource Estimate for the Caribbean Region Resource Country AntiguaandBarbuda Barbados Dominica DominicanRepublic Grenada Guadeloupe Haiti Jamaica St.KittsandNevis St.Lucia St.Vincent/Grenadines SabaIsland Total Wind MW 400 10 3,200 11 15 10 70 5 2 3,773 GWH/ yr 870 20 7,000 20 30 20 150 10 4 8,224 Geothermal MW 100 400 30 300 25 400 1,255 GWH/ yr 700 2,800 210 2,100 170 2,800 8,780 Hydro MW 8 210 50 22 5 295 GWH/ yr 50 1,470 350 150 30 2,050 Solar PV MW 27 26 45 2,899 21 98 1,654 650 16 36 23 5,803 GWH/ yr 30 30 50 3,800 20 120 2,170 850 20 40 30 7,560 Biomass MW 0.5 40 20 61 GWH/ yr 2 210 100 312 Total MW 427 36 153 6309 432.5 143 1714 782 341 61 30 400 11,187 GWH/ yr 900 50 800 12270 2842 360 2540 1360 2230 210 64 2800 26,926
Notes: Highlighted cells are Nexant derived estimates from different sources. Others numbers are as quoted in the references listed below. Solar PV - Nexant estimate based on US Government study of covering 0.1% land with PV and 200-300 W/m2 solar insolation. The blank cells in Table 8-13 indicate that sufficient and credible information is lacking, and Nexant could not estimate the available resources. A blank does NOT mean that that resource does not exist in that country.
8-36
References: Guadeloupe - wind Carilec 2002; http://www.carilec.org/Presentations/RE_Conf_2002/Specifity%20of%20Wind%20Market%20in%20Caribbean%20Island s.pdf Jamaica Wind Power Study, Renewable Energy Systems Ltd, UK Ministry for Public Works, Transportation and Communications, Bureau of Mines and Energy Electricity of Haiti; Haiti Energy Sector Development Plan, 2007 2017: November 2006. http://www.bme.gouv.ht/energie/National_Energy_Plan_Haiti_Revised20_12_2006VM.pdf Database of Geothermal Resources in Latin American & the Caribbean, Liz Battocletti of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc. for Sandia National Laboratories under Contract No. AS-0989. February 1999. http://www.bl-a.com/ECB/PDFFiles/GeoResLAC.pdf Geothermal Energy Potential in the Caribbean Region, Erouscilla P. Joseph, Seismic Research Unit, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad, 2008. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sids/2008_roundtable/presentation/energy_joseph.pdf ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: THE SHARE OF RENEWABLE SOURCES, ECLAC/UNEP (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean/United Nations Environment Programme) (2001); http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/3/13413/Lcl.1966i.pdf Grenada Biomass Ref - THE REGIONAL HIGH LEVEL SEMINAR ON EXPANDING SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY EXPANDING SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CARIBBEAN REGION, Al Binger, On behalf of the Technical Centre for Agricultural Cooperation and the Inter America Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture, August 2007; http://www.agriculture.gov.gy/agroenergy%20presentation/24%20Al%20Binger.pdf Wind Study for Grenlec http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/grenlec2008-en-country-case-study-caricom-grenada.pdf
8-37
8.5
UPGRADE AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING UNITS
A power generating unit may suffer from poor performance in the form of inability to reach rated capacity, degraded efficiency, too many outages, and reduced expected life due to one or more of the above. One might characterize addressing these shortcomings as refitting. Performance could also be improved by taking steps to increase its rated capacity or efficiency or through other steps that could be characterized as upgrading. The technical benefits of upgrading/refitting existing oil/diesel fired generation capacity can come from increased capacity in MW, higher reliability, increased energy output, increased efficiency, increased operating flexibility, the need for less maintenance, extended lifetime, and/or the ability to use a wider range of fuels. Increased energy output can come from a combination of one or more of the above factors. The technical benefits could be assessed as the increase from a units current performance. The costs of achieving those benefits include the capital costs, any change in maintenance costs (could be a benefit), and any change in fuel costs (could be a benefit) associated with, for example, the fuel necessary to support increased output. The economic benefits from increased capacity and energy output come from the avoided cost that otherwise would be incurred to provide a similar amount of capacity and energy. As a simplistic example, suppose a particular upgrading/refitting project added 10 MW capacity to a unit, and produced added energy output equivalent to a capacity factor of 40%. One might assume that the added capacity and energy from the improved unit meant that a 10 MW new diesel unit operating at 40% capacity factor did not have to be built and run. Under that assumption the economic benefit would be the costs that otherwise would have been incurred by building and operating the 10 MW diesel. This economic benefit could be compared to the costs of the upgrading/refitting project discussed in the paragraph above. To evaluate the benefits more accurately would require at least system simulations and possibly a least cost generation planning exercise. Whether the cost of undertaking such work would be justified depends on circumstances, but is less likely when the improvements affect small units. Simplistic estimates often may be the best approach. Quantifying the estimated benefits and costs requires information such as the following: The capital cost of making the improvement Impact of the improvement on capacity, efficiency, reliability, remaining life, and suitable fuels Remaining life of the unit Operating capacity factor of the unit over its remaining life with and without the improvement Efficiency of the unit at its operating points with and without the improvement Fuel cost over the remaining lifetime Maintenance cost over the remaining life with and without the improvement
8-38
The capital cost of the new unit that otherwise would be needed to provide the capacity, and its salvage value at the end of the remaining life of the improved unit The efficiency, fuel cost, and maintenance costs of the unit(s) that would otherwise provide the additional energy generated by the improved unit
The Caribbean utilities provided considerable information on the capacity, fuels, and efficiency of their existing, as summarized in Table 5-2. We received relatively little information on their condition, and the specific information we received was for units in excellent condition. Some utilities provided verbal information that some of their units were in poor condition. However, we received no information on specific shortcomings of existing units or the potential for upgrades. That being the case, we of course also received no information on the improved technical performance, nor on the costs of addressing the shortcomings. Accordingly, we were unable to assess the option and associated costs and benefits of upgrading/refitting existing oil/diesel fired generation capacity to meet future regional/sub-regional demand. 8.6 RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
The Caribbean region has some existing renewable energy plants, the utilities generation expansion plans specify additional plants, and other projects not in their plans have been proposed. 8.6.1 Hydro The actual capacity of hydro plants may vary due to river flow, annual rain fall, and degradation in reservoir capacity as well as technical issues. The installed hydro power plant capacity in the region (nameplate rating, current rating if different) is shown below. Dominica 7.6 MW, 5.0 MW in three plants Existing Renewable Projects:
Dominican Republic 472 MW in numerous run-of-river and reservoir plants Haiti Jamaica St. Vincent Guadeloupe Wind The installed wind power plant capacity in the region (nameplate rating, current rating if different) is shown below. Dominican Republic 100 MW in two 50 MW wind farms 62 MW, 31 MW in one major and several smaller plants 23 MW, 20.4 MW 3.67 MW, 2.50 MW 9.4 MW in 13 units
8-39
Jamaica Guadeloupe Martinique Geothermal
20 MW, 7 MW wind farm at Wigton, Manchester 25 MW installed capacity at 13 wind farms 1 MW installed capacity at Ferme olienne du Vauclin wind farm
The installed geothermal power plant capacity in the region (nameplate rating, current rating if different) is shown below. Guadeloupe 4.7+11 = 15 MW Bouillante 1 (1986) and 2 (2004) units in operation Biomass The installed biomass power plant capacity in the region (nameplate rating, current rating if different) is shown below. Guadeloupe Martinique Solar PV The installed solar PV power plant capacity in the region (nameplate rating, current rating if different) is shown below. Martinique EDF buys 6 10 MW rooftop solar PV from many locations. French law says EDF need accept only 30% of intermittent power generation (wind, solar PV) St. Lucia 8.6.2 LUCELEC buys 0.1 MW of rooftop solar PV power from many locations Coal and bagasse provide the fuel for three plants 4 MW municipal waste
Planned Renewable Projects
The utilities include significant expansion of renewable energy in their plans. We received little data on the cost and performance of those projects, but below we present some general results. Hydro, biomass, and landfill gas are highly economic in some circumstances but site-specific and have limited resource availability in the Caribbean. Solar PV has a large resource for potential exploitation but is expensive. Geothermal and wind are also highly site specific, but we know that they can be economic and have large resource availability in the Caribbean. The evaluation of planned and proposed (Section 8.6.3) renewable projects is conducted using screening analysis. Section 11 describes the details of the screening analysis approach. Here we offer a condensed summary. Screening analysis: 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
Selects lowest cost resources at each capacity factor, producing the least-cost line for that set of resources
Section 11 provides evaluations of each island based on the cost of fossil fuels there, against which we compare the cost of generation from renewable energy. Below we present more general results based on the assumption that distillate is the fuel against which renewable energy options competes. Figure 8-13 presents the Distillate LCL, which shows the lowest cost that can be obtained from a distillate-fueled power plant at each capacity factor from zero to 90%. The representative technology options are 20 MW simple cycle gas turbines and 20 MW low speed diesel engines. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right.
8-41
2,500
20 MW LSD Dist, US$/kW-yr 20 MW GT Dist, US$/kW-yr
80 70 Cost, US cents/kWh
8-42
2,000
Distillate LCL, US$/kW-yr Distillate LCL, US cents/kWh
60 50 40
1,500
1,000
30 20
500 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, % 0 90%
Figure 8-13 Least Cost Line for Distillate Fuel Figure 8-13 shows that the 20 MW gas turbine is lowest in cost at zero capacity factor and the 20 MW low speed diesel is least cost at capacity factors above zero. Whether a utility would want to install gas turbines for such limited use is uncertain. Figure 8-14 compares renewable energy options to the Distillate LCL when distillate is the fuel. 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.
2,500
80
2,000
1,500
50 40 30 20
1,000
500 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, % 0 90%
Figure 8-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options Figure 8-14 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. Although we do not have adequate data to analyze specific projects, the analysis summarized in Figure 8-14 indicates that all the projects planned by the utilities have the potential to be economic except the Solar PV planned for Martinique. That technology is heavily subsidized there through high feed-in tariffs for residential PV-generated power, which explains why more PV is expected there. Hydro Dominica Upgrading of existing hydro facilities is DOMLECs #2 priority, after geothermal. Considerable hydro potential exists, but costs may be high and no further development is planned. Dominican Republic Construction is under way or contracts have been signed for 356 MW of new hydro plants. In addition, 159 MW of hydro projects to produce 390 GWH/yr are in final
Cost, US cents/kWh
8-43
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
70 60
designs, 57 MW of hydro projects to produce 188 GWH/yr have had feasibility studies, and 405 MW of hydro projects to produce 850 GWH/yr have had pre-feasibility studies. Haiti Rehabilitation of the entire main existing hydro plant (Peligere) is planned. The Government of Brazil is developing a 30 MW hydro plant not far from the existing Peligere plant. St. Vincent An engineering study for micro hydro 500 kW 2 MW is planned.
Expansion of existing hydro plant to addition of 2 MW at South Rivers and Richmond Wind Antigua & Barbuda Feasibility studies have been undertaken for a 4-5 MW wind farm on Antigua and an up to 400 MW wind farm on Barbuda Barbados Approved 10 MW wind farm development at Lamberts St. Lucy, as part of a joint development with new diesel engines Dominica measurements DOMLEC has leased land for a wind farm and will take wind
Dominica: Has identified 9 wind sites and developers are proceeding with 7 wind sites. Dominican Republic 350 MW of wind power plants have been approved and are awaiting financing. Provisional studies have identified an additional 1,200 MW potential Grenada Two sites have wind monitoring equipment installed.
Haiti A study of wind at three sites has been conducted and found good results after 6 months at two of them. They want to study other sites Jamaica MW Detailed engineering is under way to expand Wigdon Wind Farm by 18
Martinique Expansion of existing Ferme olienne du Vauclin wind farm to 40 MW is planned by 2020. French law St. Lucia LUCELEC is pursuing a wind farm on land they already own. They have anemometers at 10 meters that indicate average wind speeds of 7.5 meters/second when the wind is blowing, which is most of the time. 40 meter anemometers are planned for the near future. LUCELEC believes it can accept only about 30% intermittent generation, given its demand structure. St. Vincent Geothermal Announced a 2 MW wind farm for Canouan Island
8-44
Dominica West Indies Power (Dominica) Ltd. (WIPD) signed a Geothermal Resources Exploration and Development Agreement with the Government of Dominica in 2008, granting them the rights to explore for and develop the geothermal resources located near Soufriere in southern Dominica.. Drilling of the first three slim (exploratory) wells is scheduled to start in June 2010 in the Soufriere area near the southern coast. DOMLECs first priority for new generation is a 10 15 MW geothermal plant. The French AFD agency has been undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the geothermal potential at the Watton Waven field in central Dominica for some time. Nevis In 2009 West Indies Power (Nevis) Ltd. (WIPN) was issued a Geothermal Resource Concession by the Nevis Island Administration (NIA) and signed a 25 year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Nevis Electricity Company Ltd. (NEVLEC). NEVLEC signed a 25 year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with WIPN for the supply of 10MWs of electrical power. 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. In March 2010 West Indies Power signed a mandate agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia for the financing of a 10 MW geothermal power plant and later to arrange financing for a 30 MW geothermal power plant both of which will be installed on Nevis. Once a Power Purchase Agreement and other required documents are signed by the St Kitts Government, Scotiabank will arrange financing for an additional 30MW geothermal power plant which will supply energy to the St Kitts Electricity Department via a submarine cable from Nevis. Third party experts confirmed that the geothermal reservoir on Nevis has the potential to produce over 300MW. Discussions are underway to supply the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with geothermal power from Nevis via submarine cables. St. Kitts Discussions are underway between WIP and St. Kitts Electricity and several hotels to supply St. Kitts with 50MW of geothermal power from Nevis via a 3 mile HV AC submarine cable. St. Lucia There was significant ($40 million) geothermal exploration in the 1970s 1980s, but the wells did not produce much steam. The geothermal resource is tied up with a long-term license without use or lose provisions and the Canadian developer (UNEC) has done little in the years since signing. LUCELEC has actively negotiated with the developer but a power purchase agreement (PPA) has not been agreed. St. Vincent There appears to be some geothermal potential but the rights to the resource may be tied up with a developer who has done little Biomass Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Surinam Electric utilities from these three countries mentioned an interest in electric power from waste, with the primarily motivation of disposing of the waste rather than power generation Dominican Republic A 1 MW biomass demo plant is planned for Bonao. The DR also plans a 4,000 Bbl/month biodiesel plant
8-45
Jamaica Announced plan to develop an estimated 20 MW municipal waste to energy project in Kingston Solar PV Martinique MW by 2020. EDF expects another 20 MW in the near future and to reach a total of 42
St. Lucia LUCELEC is several months into a study of customer solar PV with grid storage (buy/sell arrangements) 8.6.3 Proposed Renewable Projects
When distillate fueled power generation is the alternative, the economic window for other generation options is large. Economically attractive hydro, wind, and biomass plants can be developed on a site-by-site basis. In fact, these technologies have all been implemented in other countries where generation less costly than distillate is the alternative. Geothermal projects are the largest and most advanced of the renewable energy projects proposed. All of the proposed regional/sub-regional renewable energy projects include geothermal power generation. Geothermal power plants have several desirable characteristics: Proved commercial technology Lowest cost of power at high capacity factors Low enough in cost of power to make transmission to other islands via submarine cable feasible Steady output (not intermittent) Low emissions Cost effective at relatively low capacity
Where a good geothermal resource exists in the Caribbean, geothermal power generation is the technology of choice for supplying local demand. The geothermal resource is essentially proven in Nevis. In the other countries where Table 8-13 shows significant potential, the indications are good but the resource is not proven. The section below provides an evaluation involving geothermal power that applies to two countries. Most of the proposed geothermal projects involve submarine cable interconnections. For that reason we provide their evaluation in Section 9.3, which deals with interconnections in general. 8.6.3.1 Dominica and Nevis
In both Dominica and Nevis, the least-cost fuel is distillate because the fixed costs associated with all other fuels produces high unit costs (above distillate) when demand is so low. The least cost technology is a 5 MW medium speed diesel. Figure 8-15 shows the least-cost line (Fossil
8-46
LCL) for those two countries when geothermal is not an option. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. This is the simplest situation. The only technology considered is the 5 MW MSD, and the only fuel considered is distillate. (If HFO were used, the costs would be slightly lower, but the difference is insignificant for the purpose here.) The least cost line (LCL) is simply the cost curve for the 5 MW MSD. The figure uses the term Fossil LCL because all the resources comprising the LCL are fossil-fueled. Figure 8-14 also shows the cost in US cents/kWh, which is slightly 20.4 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factors.
2,500
80 Fossil LCL Dom Nevis US$/kW-yr 70

Cost US cents/kWh
8-47
2,000
5 MW MSD Dist Dom Nevis US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL Dom Nevis US cents/kWh 5 MW MSD Dist Dom Nevis US cents/kWh 60 50 40
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% Capacity Factor, %
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 8-15 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis with No Geothermal The LCL rises quickly because of the high fuel cost. At zero capacity factor the annual cost is $82/kW-year, representing the sum of annualized investment costs and fixed O&M costs. The annual fixed cost is the same at all capacity factors. At 80% capacity factor the annual cost is $1,366/kW-year. The impact of high fuel cost is impressive. Figure 8-16 compares the cost of geothermal generation to the Fossil 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, in blue, represents the benefit of the geothermal plant. Its generation would displace generation at a cost along the blue line. Where the geothermal plants 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.
The smallest geothermal plant for which we estimated costs is 20 MW, used here. The plants for Nevis and Dominica would probably be 10 MW. The cost per kW of a smaller plant would be expected to be somewhat higher. The line showing annual cost in $/kW-year is nearly flat because the fuel cost is zero. The capital cost of developing the geothermal resource (wells, etc.) is included in the capital cost of the plant. The cost is only US$388/kW-year and 5.5 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, far below the corresponding values for the Fossil LCL at 80% capacity factor. The geothermal plant is lower in cost at capacity factors above about 18%. Typically geothermal plants run in a base load mode, at high capacity factors. The net benefit of the geothermal plant is represented by the how far below the Fossil LCL the Geothermal line falls. In other words, the net benefit of the geothermal plant is the cost avoided by the geothermal plant less the geothermal plants cost. The net benefit is about 15 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at about 18% capacity factor. If the geothermal costs were twice the estimate above, perhaps due to the smaller plant size, higher return on investment, or any other reason, the cost of 11 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor would still be far below the cost of power generated from distillate.
2,500
80
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 8-16 Fossil Least Cost Line for Dominica and Nevis vs. Geothermal With geothermal power available, the resource mix would include geothermal for service above 18% capacity factor and MSD diesels for service at capacity factors below 18%.
Cost US cents/kWh
8-48
Fossil LCL Dom Nevis US$/kW-yr 20 MW Geo Dom Nevis US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Fossil LCL Dom Nevis US cents/kWh 20 MW Geo Dom Nevis US cents/kWh
70 60
Geothermal appears highly likely to provide a sufficient resource to supply all the generation for Nevis, and likely to provide a sufficient resource to supply all the generation for Dominica. If those fail, and good wind sites are identified, wind too can supply energy at lower cost than the Fossil LCL. Other renewable energy options, not shown, might also be able to contribute lower cost energy. For both Dominica and Nevis, the size of the geothermal power plant compared to the islands demand is an important issue. For both islands, the plant may be designed to serve 100% of the islands demand at the time of installation, less (in Dominicas case) the generation expected from its existing hydro system. No power plant is available for service 100% of the time. The utilities would need to plan for 100% backup of the geothermal plant from other resources. Initially this could be their existing distillate-fueled generators. Eventually it might be necessary to build new plants to serve primarily as backup. The requirements for spinning and operating reserves would increase. These increases in reserve requirements impose an economic burden not accounted for in the analysis above, but incorporating them would not reverse the economic advantages shown.
8-49
Section 9
9.1 9.1.1
Submarine Cables and Interconnection Options
OVERVIEW OF SUBMARINE CABLES Introduction
The state of the art in submarine cable technology is briefly reviewed in the following sections of this report with the objective of providing background on the types of submarine power cable currently available and their ranges of application in terms of voltage, power transmission capacity, maximum transmission distance and maximum water depth, etc. This information will assist in the development of a regional / sub-regional energy supply plan for the Caribbean based on interconnectivity using submarine power cables and an assessment of the benefits that can be derived from a co-ordination of the individual electrical utilities energy supply plans. Power cable systems can be organized into three general categories, namely: Self-contained cables Pipe-type cables Gas insulated lines
Only self-contained cables are generally used in submarine cable applications. As the name implies this type of cable has external protection (metal sheath, polymeric jacket, and armor wires) applied as an integral part of the cable construction as opposed to pipe-type and gasinsulated types where the cable cores are drawn into pre-installed steel or aluminum pipes. Within the self-contained category several types can be identified according to the insulating material employed as follows: Extruded dielectric cables with cross-linked polyethylene or ethylene-propylene- rubber insulation (XLPE and EPR cables, respectively). These cables are mainly used in AC applications up to and including the highest transmission voltages (500 kV AC for XLPE and 138 kV for EPR) though a modified grade of XLPE is in use in DC applications at the lower voltage up to and including 150 kV DC. Paper or laminated paper-polypropylene tape insulation impregnated with a low viscosity dielectric fluid (typically dodecylbenzene) which is pressurized to improve its dielectric strength (self-contained, fluid-filled or SCFF cables). These cables are in use in AC and DC applications up to and including 500 kV AC and 500 kV DC. Paper tape insulated cables impregnated with a very high viscosity dielectric fluid which is substantially non-draining and which unlike SCFF cables is not pressurized (mass-impregnated or MI cables). MI cables are only suitable for use at relatively low AC voltages (69 kV AC) but are used extensively at all DC voltage levels up to and including 500 kV DC.
A review of worldwide submarine cable service experience in AC applications is presented in Section 9.1.2; DC applications are covered in Section 9.1.3. A summary is provided in Section
9.1.4 of transmission distances, voltages and power transmission capacities for both AC and DC cable types, and Section 9.1.5 provides comments on submarine cable project costs. 9.1.2 AC Submarine Cable Applications
There are many thousands of kilometers of medium voltage ( 69 kV) submarine cables installed worldwide. These are mainly of the extruded dielectric type with both XLPE and EPR being employed. XLPE medium voltage cables have a lead sheath and a polymer over-sheath or jacket, while EPR cables are generally of the wet design type which means that the EPR insulation is in contact with the sea water. An example of this design is the 44 km long 46 kV AC 3-core Nantucket Island Cable installed in 2004 between the Massachusetts mainland and Nantucket Island. In the HV and EHV voltage ranges - that is from 110 kV and upwards - AC submarine cable links in the order of 10 km or more are dominated by the self-contained, fluid-filled cable type (SCFF). XLPE cables, on the other hand, have seen application at voltages up to and including 150 kV and are just beginning to be applied in the 230 kV to 420 kV voltage range. Up to a voltage of 150 kV, submarine cables have, in general, a three-core configuration to facilitate circuit installation in one operation, thereby reducing the costs of burial and/or other means of protection against mechanical damage. For higher voltages, the cable design is typically single core. Figure 9-1 shows a sample of the submarine cable connecting the islands of Sardinia (Italy) and Corsica (France). The cable connection is 15 km long, laid at a depth of 75 meters, and buried in the seabed. At the shore ends, additional protective cast iron shells have been applied. The cable weight is 75 kg/m in air and 48 kg/m in water, and the overall diameter is 207 mm. The cable is rated 150 kV for the transmission of 150 MVA, the copper conductors crosssectional area is 400 mm2. A fiber optic element has been placed in the cable interstices for data and signal transmission.
Figure 9-1 3-Core XLPE Submarine Cable

Similar cables have been used for the connection of large off-shore wind farms in the European North Sea, as indicated in the list of some of the major AC submarine cable links presented in Table 9-1. The following details for some of the more significant links are provided to supplement the data contained in the table: Mallorca-Menorca, 1973: The longest (42 km) SCFF AC submarine cable link ever installed. The 90-m-deep link was designed for both 132 kV AC and 200 kV DC operation. Vancouver Island, 1984: This double-circuit, 325-m-deep link using SCFF cable continues to hold the world record for the highest voltage (525 kV) and power transmission capacity (1,200 MW/circuit). The 30 + 8 km long route places this link among the longest AC EHV transmission cable links ever installed. Karlskrona, 1986: The first use of XLPE cables in an HV submarine cable application. Long Island Sound, 1991: The 20-km submarine portion of this 345 kV, 750 MVA interconnection consists of four SCFF cables, with one being kept as a spare for use in case of failure on one of the energized phases. The cable is the largest and most heavily armored single core AC submarine cable ever manufactured with a diameter of 170 mm and a mass of 83.5 kg/m. Gulf of Aqaba, 1997: The 13-km link consists of three 420 kV cables plus a spare. The transmission capacity is 550 MW. Cables were laid in a maximum water depth of 840 m, which is considered to be close to the limit for SCFF cables, although a sea trial for this project was successfully carried out at a 900-m water depth. Isle of Man, United Kingdom, 2000: The world's longest HV AC submarine cable is the Isle of ManUK Mainland link, which is 105 km, XLPE insulated, and 90 kV. Singlecore flexible factory-installed splices were spaced at intervals of 5-7 km. Norway-Gossen Island, 2007: The worlds highest voltage AC XLPE submarine cable system is 3.2 km long, 200 m deep, and 420 kV. (See Figure 9-2)
Figure 9-2 Photograph of a Sample of the 525 kV Vancouver Island Cable
9-3
Table 9-1 List of Some of the Worlds Major AC Submarine Cable Links Name of Link Long Island USA Mallorca-Menorca Spain Long Island USA Prince Edward Is. Canada Vancouver Is. Canada Karlskrona Sweden Labuan-Beaufort (Malaysia) South Padre Is. USA Long Island USA Negros-Cebu Philippines Leyte-Cebu Philippines Penang Island Malaysia Spain-Morocco Gulf of Aqaba Egypt-Jordan Isle of Man (UK) Date 1970 1973 1977 1977 1984 1986 1989 1991 1991 1993 1995 1996 1997 1997 2000 Voltage (kV) 138 132 345 138 525 145 132 138 345 138 230 275 400 420 90 Power (MW) 300 80 600 200 1,200 300 77 250 750 85 200 1,000 700 550 40 Conduc -tor (mm2) 600 kcmil 500 2,500 kcmil 3 x 240 1,600 500 3 x 190 380 2,000 300 630 800 800 1,000 3 x 300 3 x 630 3 x 630 3 x 760 3 x 400 N/A 3 x 800 Cable Length (km) 7 x 19 4 x 42 3 x 2.1 3/C x 14 4 x 39 3x7 3/C x 15 3 x 14 4 x 13 4 x 18 4 x 32.5 6 x 14 4 x 26 4 x 13 3/C x 105 3/C x 4.6 1 x 21 1 x 22 1 x 15 4 x 3.2 3 x 20 Max. Water Depth (m) 60 90 30 30 400 N/A N/A 1.5 35 60 280 20 630 840 40 <15 <20 <20 75 200 60 Cable Type SCFF SCFF HPFF SCFF SCFF XLPE SCFF XLPE SCFF SCFF SCFF SCFF SCFF SCFF XLPE XLPE XLPE XLPE XLPE XLPE XLPE
Galveston Island 2001 138 200 USA Horns Rev 2002 150 215 Denmark Seas Roedsand 2003 132 200 Denmark Sardinia-Corsica 2005 150 150 Norway-Gossen Is. 2007 420 1000 LIRC Long Island 2008 138 450 1 USA 1 Replacement for the SCFF cables installed in 1970.
9-4
9.1.3
DC Submarine Cable Applications
Three types of submarine power cable can be considered for high-voltage, direct-current (HV DC) operation, namely: Self-contained, fluid-filled cables (SCFF cables) Self-contained, mass-impregnated cables (MI cables) Self-contained, solid dielectric cables (XLPE and EPR cables)
As already mentioned in Section 9.1.1 of this report, the first two cable types in the above list both have insulation consisting of paper tapes impregnated with a dielectric fluid, but are distinguished either by the type of impregnant or by the use of a fluid-pressurizing system. In the case of the SCFF cables, a low-viscosity synthetic fluid - usually dodecylbenzene - is maintained under pressure by oil-pumping stations placed at one or both cable ends while MI cables employ a oil-based high-viscosity non-pressurized compound. The use of HV DC solid dielectric cables has been delayed due to complications with insulation design, which are caused by the build-up of space charges in the insulation and their subsequent distortion of the electrical stress distribution. This phenomenon manifests itself in a significant reduction in the DC and impulse electric strength of the insulation when the temperature increases and a 30 - 40% decrease in the DC electric strength when the polarity is reversed. Recent progress in the development of modified XLPE using special functional groups has been successful in solving the space-charge problem. As a result, the first modified-XLPE HV DC submarine cable link (the 150 kV DC, 330 MW Cross Sound Cable Link) was installed in Long Island Sound in 2002. Another modified-XLPE submarine cable link was commissioned in 2006. This link between Finland and Estonia, a distance of some 75 km, will also operate at 150 kV DC and transport 350 MW of power. Table 9-2 lists the majority of important HV DC submarine cable links in service worldwide at the present. As can be seen by referring to this table, the total installed cable length is about 3,000 km, and the total service experience can be summarized as approximately 52,000 kmyears. Other significant conclusions include the following: MI cables account for approximately 80% of the entire installed cable length. SCFF cables are only used for relatively short routes (a few 10s of km). The state of the art in long-length MI cable technology is the 450 kV, 700 MW, 580-km Norway to Netherlands link in the North Sea. The state of the art in depth of laying is the 1,000 m depth, but a 1,650 m depth project at the voltage of 500 kV is in progress. The 150 kV, 330 MW Cross Sound cable system is the first DC submarine cable system to operate with the relatively new voltage source control (VSC) converter technology (Apland et al. 1998).
9-5
Table 9-2 List of Some of the Worlds Major DC Submarine Cable Links Name of Link Gotland 1 Sweden Italy Sardinia Konti-Skan 1 Vancouver Is. 1 Canada Skaggerak 1,2 Vancouver Is. 2 HokkaidoHonshu Japan Gotland 2,3 Sweden Cross-Channel 2 UK-France Konti-Skan 2,3 DenmarkGermany Fenno-Skan Sweden-Finland Cook Strait 2 New Zealand Skagerrak 3 Norway-Denmark Cheju (Korea) Baltic Cable Sweden-Germany Sweden - Poland KII Japan Italy - Greece Moyle (UK) Cross Sound (USA)5 Date 1956 1965 1965 1969 1976 1976 1980 1983 1986 1988 1989 1991 1993 1993 1994 1999 2000 2001 2001 2002 Voltage (kV) 100 200 285 300 263 300 250 150 270 285 400 350 350 180 450 450 500 400 250 150 Power (MW) 20 200 300 470 500 370 300 320 2,000 600 500 1,500 500 300 600 600 2,800 500 500 330 Conduc -tor (mm2) 90 340 630 400 800 400 600 800 900 1,200 1,200 1,400 1,400 800 1,600 1,600 3,000 1,250 1,000 1,300 Cable Length (km) 100 2 x 118 64 3 x 27 2 x 125 2 x 35 2 x 42 2 x 100 8 x 50 2 x 64 200 3 x 40 125 2 x 96 250 253 4 x 49 160 2 x 55 2 x 42 Max. Water Depth (m) 160 450 80 200 600 200 290 160 55 80 117 300 500 160 60 90 70 1000 100 40 Cable Type MI MI MI MI MI MI SCFF MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI SCFF MI MI XLPE
First HV DC Light Submarine Cable System.

Name of Link Bass Link (Aus) NorwayNetherlands Sardinia-Italy Neptune NJ-NY
Date 2005 2007 2008 2010 2007
Voltage (kV) 400 450 500 500
Power (MW) 500 700 1,000 660
Conduc -tor (mm2) 1,500 700 1,600 2,100
Cable Length (km) 290 2 x 580 2 x 400 105
Max. Water Depth (m) 75 410 1,650 25
Cable Type MI MI MI MI
9.1.4
The Choice Between AC and DC Transmission
The relationship of cable length to the choice of an AC or DC transmission voltage lies in the capacitance of the cable. As the AC cable length and voltage increase, the capacitance and hence the AC charging current, increases in proportion (charging current is equal to the voltage divided by the cables capacitive reactance). At the so-called critical length, the capacitance charging current equals that of the thermal current rating of the cable, and no real power can be transmitted. For short- to medium-length AC cable systems, the capacitance current can be compensated for by the use of shunt reactors at the cable terminations, or in the case of submarine cables, also at intermediate islands. For long cable lengths, however, this becomes impractical, and DC power transmission is necessary. The choice of a DC power transmission cable system in preference to the more conventional AC cable option would generally be made in cases where the power transfer requirement is greater than 150300 MW and one or more of the following characteristics apply: Long length (typically 25 miles) submarine cable link or interconnection, with length limits mainly dependent on system voltage and ampacity. Intermediate length (typically 5 to 25 miles) submarine cable interconnections between two large AC transmission networks where power transfer control is a potentially serious problem. A DC cable system provides an asynchronous or flexible transmission interconnection. Reinforcement of a long-length AC transmission system in areas of high load density (cities) without increasing the interrupting duty of AC circuit breakers.
Figure 9-3 summarizes transmission distances and capacities for various AC and DC cable types. As indicated in the Figure, there is no known length limitation for HV DC cables and lengths in the order of 1,000 km are considered feasible.
9-7
Figure 9-3 Transmission Cable System Selection Criteria for Various Cable Types and Capacities (Courtesy of Prysmian Cables and Systems). 9.1.5 Submarine Cable Project Costs
Table 9-3 provides submarine cable projects costs for a number of HV AC and HV DC submarine cable links either already in service or under construction since 2006. In most cases the costs refer only to the supply and installation of the submarine cable. The asterisks against UK-Ireland and Norned Projects indicate that the converter costs are included, while the Delma Island Project included a significant quantity of associated land cable of a different cable type. The key to the cable types listed is as follows. MI: MI-IRC: SCFF: XLPE: 3/c XLPE: XLP: Mass-Impregnated paper insulated cable; MI cable with and integral return conductor (Figure 9-4) Self-contained, dielectric-fluid filled cable Conventional cross-linked polyethylene insulated cable Three core XLPE Special cross-linked polymeric insulated DC cables
9-8
Table 9-3 Submarine Cable Project Costs Cable Type SCFF SCFF XLP MI MI MI MI MI MI XLPE 3/c XLPE XLP SCFF 3/c XLPE MI 3/c XLPE 3/c XLPE 3/c XLPE MI MIIRC Voltage kV 500 AC 345 AC 200 DC 250 DC 450 DC 450 DC 450 DC 500 DC 500 DC 220 AC 138 AC 200 DC 400 AC 132 AC 250 DC 245 AC 170 AC 132 AC 500 DC 150 DC Power Length MW km 600 3 x 10 500 500 400 700 600 1,000 1,000 660 1,030 450 400 2,400 100 1,000 200 215 504 800 78 3 x 12 2 x 260 2 x 122 2 x 580 1 x 250 2 x 260 2 x 400 2 x 105 6 x 9.5 3 x 20 2 x 85 6 x 46 2 x 40 2 x 240 1x8 1 x 42 1 x 75 1 x 200 1 x 292 Cost, $M US Current Year Year $ 2009 $ 180 188 122 550* 239 670* 280 350 485 180 220 94 125 343 130* 380 9 40 150 240 125 127 550 239 717 388 365 519 205 229 101 130 367 139 396 9 42 153 245 134
Project Hainan Isl. (China) Cross Hudson (USA) UK - Ireland Cheju Isl. 2 (Korea) Norned (Nor NL) Baltic (Swe Ger) BritNed (UK NL) Sardinia Italy (Sapei) Neptune (USA) Doha Bay (Qatar) LIRC (USA) Transbay (USA) Saudi Bahrain Delma Is.l (Abu Dhabi) Balearic Isl. (Spain) Wolfe Isl. (Canada) HornsRev 2 (Denmark) Gt. Gabbard (UK) Fennoskan 2 (Swe-Fin) Valhall (NorNorthSea)
Date 2007 2007 2009 2009 2006 1994 2007 2006 2004 2007 2006 2007 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2006
9-9
Figure 9-4 HV DC MI-IRC Cable Note the concentric copper conductor in Figure 9-4. This conductor carries the return current which is generally carried either in the sea/ground (ex. Baltic Cable) or in a separate return cable (ex. Neptune Cable). Nexans introduced the integral return concept in 2001 and it has been used in two projects (Moyle and Valhall Cables). An attempt was made to correlate the variation of the costs presented in Table 9-3 with both power rating and cable length. Expressing the cost (in 2009 $) per MW as a linear function of the route length using the following equation, namely: Cost per MW = 2009 $US (230,000 + 850 x Route Length in km) provided a reasonable representation of most of the data. Exceptions included the three projects marked with the asterisks in Table 9-3 (as expected, because of the converter costs and cost of associated land cable not included in the other projects) plus the Cheju Island and the Valhall HV DC Projects with, respectively, extremely high and extremely low costs. Figure 9-5 presents the data and graph used to establish the equation above. The dark pink data points are AC cable projects and the dark blue are DC cable projects. The Figure shows that all the longer cables are DC and all the shorter cables are AC. Although a larger data set would show some overlap, there are fundamental reasons for this result: The high cost of converter stations for DC cables makes them uncompetitive for short distances AC cables are not used for long distances because the capacitance charging current increases linearly with length and eventually consumes all of the available real current rating
9-10
1800 1 1600 1400
Cost per MW in k$ US
1200 1000 800 2 600 400 200 3 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Submarine Route Length (km)
Figure 9-5 Correlation Between Cable Length and Cost (2009 $) As can be seen from the Figure 9-5, points 1 through 3 lie far outside the general pattern. Point 1: the Valhall Project is a DC link to an offshore oil rig. Nexans, the suppliers, agree that the link is extremely expensive given the very low power requirement, but said that for environmental reasons the rig was not allowed to burn oil or gas for power generation, so BP had no option but to source power from the nearest land (Norway). Point 2, the Cheju Island 2 Project in Koreas high cost is probably explained by the fact that the Korean manufacturer is a new player in the submarine cable field having recently commissioned a new submarine cable plant. This project is their first and, as a result, their price probably included a high fixed cost relating to the cost of the new plant. Point 3, the Wolfe Island Project cost is very low and the reason is not clear. However, this is a world first for a 245 kV 3-core XLPE submarine cable. The short length ~8 km is ideal for the launch of a new product and this may be the reason for the relatively low price. The remaining scatter in the data points is remarkably low considering the diversity of cable types, site conditions etc. The formula can be considered a useful guide in estimating submarine cable project costs and in assessing supplier bids.
9-11
9.1.6 9.1.6.1
Depth Limitations and Spurs Depth Limitations
Depth limitations are of special interest in the Caribbean, which generally is deep and has numerous deep trenches. Depth limitations are mainly concerned with cable mass in relation to the tensile strength of the cable. In order to lay, and perhaps more important to retrieve a cable for repair, the strength of the cable material must be sufficient to support the weight of the length of the cable between the ocean floor and the surface (less its buoyancy). In other words, a cable must be strong enough to support the weight of a length of cable equal to the depth in which it is being place. It cannot be placed at greater depths than its strength can support. As a guideline, the maximum depth for AC cables is 1,000 m, whereas for DC cables it is 1,500 m. For example, Prysmian opted for an aluminum conductor for the deep water portion (1,650 m) of the SAPEI (Sardinia Italy) Project in order to reduce the tensile load on the cable. They retained the standard copper conductor for the shallower water. Copper conductor was used for the entire GRITA Project including the deep water (1,000 m) portion. 9.1.6.2 Spurs
With submarine cables, it is not feasible to have a main line carrying bulk power with spurs spliced into the main line and delivering smaller amounts of power to a series of islands along the main lines length. Cable splices need to be flexible especially for laying in deep water. Flexible means that the diameter of the splice is approximately equal to that of the cable itself. Splicing and laying such a spur is beyond current technology. Interconnecting several islands can be accomplished by going from island to island, with terminals on each island, or by delivering (for example) all the power to a single central island. Submarine cables from the central island would connect separately to one or more islands in the region. 9.1.7 Submarine Cable Reliability and Repair Procedures
Attachments B and C provide information on Submarine Power Cable Reliability and Submarine Power Cable Repair Procedures, respectively. 9.2 EXISTING/PROPOSED SUB-REGIONAL INTERCONNECTION OPTIONS
Most of the sub-regional interconnection projects involve geothermal power generation but were not reviewed in Section 8.6 as part of the review of renewable projects. The review presented in Section 9.3 focuses on the economic feasibility of the projects. Section 9.2.1 provides a technical review of most of those projects. The only interconnection project that is not both renewable and does not involve a submarine interconnection is a land-based line from Haiti to Dominican Republic whose primary objective is to provide Haiti access to lower fuel cost fossil-fueled generation resources in the Dominican Republic. Section 9.2.3 provides an economic review of that project.
9-12
9.2.1
Submarine Interconnections Technical Review
Geothermal resources on Nevis, Saba, and Dominica have been identified as being potentially suitable for the supply of electrical power to other Caribbean Islands. Nine potential submarine power cable interconnection options are under consideration and one supplier (Nexans) has already provided technical details and budgetary costs for seven of the proposed links, which are summarized in Table 9-4 below. Table 9-4 Proposed Submarine Cable Interconnections Proposed Interconnection Dominica to Guadeloupe Dominica to Martinique USVI to BVI Nevis to St. Kitts Saba to St. Maarten Nevis to USVI Nevis to Puerto Rico Cable Type 3/core XLPE 3/core XLPE 3/core XLPE 3/core XLPE 3/core XLPE MI-IRC MI-IRC Voltage, kV 132 kV AC 132 kV AC 36 kV AC 90 kV AC 132 kV AC 150 kV DC 400 kV DC Power, MVA / MW 100 MVA 100 MVA 25 MVA 50 MVA 100 MVA 80 MW 400 MW Route Length, km 70 75 32 5 60 320 400 Max. Depth, m 700 1,000 20 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 Cost, Million US$ 47.0 50.0 16.0 12.0 44.0 255 575
From the point of view of technical feasibility the HV DC links Nevis to USVI and Nevis to Puerto Rico are within the state-of-the-art for voltage and maximum water depth (see Table 9-2). On the other hand while there are several 3/core XLPE submarine cables in service at 132 kV AC and above (see Table 9-1), all of which are installed in relatively shallow water (depths less than 100 m). Since 3/core cables are relatively large and heavy compared with single core cables, qualification according to CIGRE Electra 171 Recommendations for Mechanical Tests on Submarine Cables 1997 should be required. Qualification should also include a Sea-Trial Test which is recommended by CIGRE in cases where the laying conditions and/or designs differ considerably from earlier established practice. Figure 9-6 shows a correlation between cost per MW/MVA and length: While the proposed correlation can be criticized as being over-simplified, it does fit most of the data provided by Nexans. Of the two exceptions, USVI to BVI and Nevis to USVI, the former is difficult to explain as the voltage and power transfer are reasonably consistent with the pattern
9-13
provided by the other HV AC cable links. The 80 MW power transmission capacity in the case of the latter interconnection is clearly very low and the relatively high cost per MW may have resulted from the need to over design the cable from an electrical viewpoint (i.e. by employing larger conductor sizes) in order to strengthen the mechanical design to cater for the high laying tension due to the 1000 m water depth. Nexans has been asked to comment but at the time of writing no response has been received. Nexans have also suggested two other interconnections, namely Nevis to Antigua (75 km, 25 MVA) and St. Vincent to Barbados (170 km, 50 MVA). Nevis to Antigua will certainly be an HV AC interconnection and St. Vincent to Barbados an HV DC interconnection. Without more detailed information these interconnections appear to fit the unit costs developed for the USVI to BVI and Nevis to USVI, respectively. Using these unit costs to provide best estimates of the probable costs of these interconnections results in the following figures: Nevis to Antigua: US$37.5 million St. Vincent to Barbados: US$85 million
Figure 9-6 Correlation between Cost per MW/MVA and Length Cost Comparison In Section 9.1.5, based on historical cost data we developed a formula relating the cost per MW of a submarine cable system to its length: Cost per MW = 2009 $US (230,000 + 850 x Route Length in km) Table 9-5 shows the resulting costs when that formula is applied to the interconnections proposed by Nexans.
9-14
Table 9-5 Cost Comparison Nexans Estimates and Historical Formula Power, MVA / MW 100 MVA 100 MVA 25 MVA 50 MVA 100 MVA 80 MW 400 MW Route Length, km 70 75 32 5 60 320 400 Max. Depth, m 700 1,000 20 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 Estimated Cost, US$ Million Nexans 47 50 16 12 44 255 575 Formula 29.0 29.4 6.4 11.7 28.1 40.2 228.0
Proposed Interconnection Dominica to Guadeloupe Dominica to Martinique USVI to BVI Nevis to St. Kitts Saba to St. Maarten Nevis to USVI Nevis to Puerto Rico
In one case the estimate produced by the historical formula is about the same as the Nexans estimate. In every other case the estimate produced by the historical formula is significantly less. Nexans estimates are based on information specific to the project in question and are current, whereas the historical formula is based on a range of situations and data going back to 1994. It is not surprising that the estimates differ. Nevertheless, it appears that the Nexans estimates at least do not understate the costs of the submarine interconnections, and therefore do not overestimate the benefits of delivering power over the cables. 9.2.2 9.2.2.1 Evaluation Submarine Cable Interconnections St. Kitts
The Fossil LCL for St. Kitts is the same as for Dominica and Nevis (Section 8.6.3) and will be used here as well. A 10 MW MSD might be justified, but the difference is insignificant. To supply geothermal power to St. Kitts requires a submarine cable, the costs of which are included in the costs shown in Figure 9-7. 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, in blue, represents the benefit of the geothermal plant / submarine cable project. Its generation would displace generation at a cost along the blue line. Where the projects 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.
9-15
The geothermal capacity of 50 MW is enough to serve 40 MW of load of the St. Kitts utility and some hotels now not part of the grid, plus some room for growth. The submarine cable, including substations at both ends, adds $533/kW to the capital cost, $2 million per year to O&M, and 1% to losses. This increases the capital cost by only 19%. The annual cost at 80% capacity factor increases to$493/kW-year and 7.0 cents/kWh, still far below the Fossil LCL. The net benefits the difference between the Fossil LCL and the geothermal plant / submarine cable line are only slightly smaller than the net benefits for Dominica and Nevis. The net benefit is 13.6 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at about 23% capacity factor. Typically geothermal plants run in a base load mode, at high capacity factors.
2,500
Fossil LCL St K US$/kW-yr 50 MW 5 kmGeo Nevis Exp US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL St K US cents/kWh 50 MW 5 km Geo Nevis Exp US cents/kWh
80 70
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 9-7 Fossil Least Cost Line for St. Kitts vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection Geothermal appears highly likely to provide a sufficient resource to supply all the generation for both Nevis and St. Kitts. If that fails, and good wind sites are identified, wind too can supply energy at lower cost than the Fossil LCL. Other renewable energy options, not shown, might also be able to contribute lower cost energy. The discussion of the need for backup of the geothermal power plant in Section 8.6.3 on Nevis and Dominica applies to St. Kitts as well the plant and submarine cable are designed to serve 100% of the demand. The conclusion is the same increases in reserve requirements impose an
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-16
60
economic burden not accounted for in the analysis above, but incorporating them would not reverse the economic advantages shown. Figure 9-19 presents conceptual map for Dominica Martinique and Dominica Guadeloupe interconnections. Since geothermal resource on Dominica would replace local generation on Martinique and Guadeloupe, our analysis was expanded to include potential fuel and generation resources for those two islands. 9.2.2.2 Martinique
Distillate fuels virtually all of Martiniques generation today. If Martinique were limited to distillate as a fuel source, its Fossil LCL would be not much different from those for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts. However, Martinique has four alternative fuels with considerably lower prices than distillate: CNG, LNG, pipeline gas, and coal. Pipeline gas from Tobago via Barbados provides the lowest price among those four. Figure 9-8 shows the Fossil LCL for Martinique assuming pipeline gas is available. Although we did not prepare a resource plan for Martinique, we felt we have enough information to identify what the Fossil LCL would be. 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 technologies are 20 MW gas turbines for 0% and 5% capacity factor, and 20 MW LSD for 10% capacity factor and above. As a practical matter it may not be economic to use gas turbines for such limited application. With pipeline gas available, the costs at 80% capacity factor for Martinique are US$604/kW-year and 8.6 US cents/kWh. The costs are far below the distillate-based costs for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts: $1,429/kW-yr and 20.4 US cents/kWh. Martinique is much farther from Dominica than St. Kitts is from Nevis, so the cost of submarine cables to that island is higher. We first use 100 MW as the size of the geothermal power plants and the submarine cables. This may be more than Martinique is willing to accept, because that makes its largest contingency about 93 MW (100 MW less losses), much higher (for example) than todays 43 MW in Martinique. This might require Martinique to maintain 93 MW (50 MW additional) of spinning or other operating reserves. The submarine cable, including substations at both ends, adds $783/kW to the capital cost, $2 million per year to O&M, and 7.5% to losses. The increase in capital cost is 28%. In other words, the geothermal/submarine cable costs are higher and the costs of the alternatives the Fossil LCLs are lower.
9-17
2,500
80
Fossil LCL Mart, US$/kW-yr

Annual Cost, $/kW-year 2,000
20 MW GT GP Mart US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD GP Mart US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL Mart, US cents/kWh
70
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 9-8 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique with No Geothermal Figure 9-9 compares the cost of the geothermal plant / submarine cable project to the Fossil LCLs. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The geothermal project is still lower in cost than the Fossil LCL at capacity factors above 63%. At 80% capacity factor the geothermal and submarine cable option costs 7.1 cents/kWh, compared to Fossil LCL costs of 8.6 cents/kWh. Thus, the net benefits the difference between the Fossil LCL and the geothermal plant / submarine cable line are much smaller than the net benefits for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts. The gas pipeline has the benefit that it could supply most or all of an islands existing power plants. In other words it could reduce costs in existing plants as well as new plants, and over the entire range of capacity factors. For both the gas pipeline and geothermal plant / submarine cable cases, storage of distillate would be required at power plants to cover outages of the pipeline or its gas inputs, or outages of the cable or the geothermal plant. Figure 9-9 also shows that wind projects at good sites can be economic even when low-cost gas is available. Other renewable energy options (not shown) might also be economic if good sites can be found.
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-18
60
2,500
Fossil LCL Mart, US$/kW-yr 100 MW 75 km Geo Dom Expo US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL Mart, US cents/kWh 100 / 75 Geo Dom Exp US cents/kWh
80 70
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-19
2,000
60 50 40
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 9-9 Fossil Least Cost Line for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW Each We also evaluated another case in order to estimate the impact of sizing the cables for 50 MW rather than 100 MW, which would mitigate the impact of the larger single contingency on reserve requirements. We assumed that the submarine cables capital cost at 50 MW would be 67% of the 100 MW costs, not 50%. Figure 9-10 shows the impact of this change. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The geothermal projects costs are below the Martinique Fossil LCL above 75% capacity factor. The net benefits are small for Martinique. Martinique is blessed with multiple options, including geothermal energy via submarine cable. It is unclear whether it would be beneficial to implement more than one. Each option has uncertainties that will need to be addressed before making a decision. Of course, the costs and other parameters of each option have uncertainty bands that further work will help reduce. In addition other issues will affect the choices available, such as whether enough countries, especially Barbados, choose to proceed with the gas pipeline, or the size of the geothermal resource in Dominica. What is clear is that displacing distillate offers very large economic benefits that widen the window of opportunity.
2,500
Fossil LCL Mart, US$/kW-yr
80 70
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-20
2,000
50 MW 75 km Geo Dom Exp US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL Mart, US cents/kWh
60 50 40
1,500
50 / 75 Geo Dom Exp US cents/kWh
1,000
30 20
500
10
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 9-10 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Martinique and Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW Each 9.2.2.3 Guadeloupe
The discussion for Guadeloupe is similar to that for Martinique. Like Martinique, Guadeloupe is primarily dependent on dependent on distillate, but to a lesser degree; it has three plants fueled by coal and bagasse and a 20 MW geothermal plant. They have roughly the same demand and are similar in other respects as well. If Guadeloupe were limited to distillate as a fuel source, its Fossil LCL would be not much different from those for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts. However, Guadeloupe has four alternative fuels with considerably lower prices than distillate: CNG, LNG, pipeline gas, and coal. Pipeline gas from Tobago via Barbados and Martinique provides the lowest price among those four. Figure 9-11 shows the Fossil LCL for Guadeloupe assuming pipeline gas is available. Although we did not prepare a resource plan for Guadeloupe, we felt we have enough information to identify what the Fossil LCL would be. 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 technologies are 20 MW gas turbines for 0% and 5% capacity factor, and 20 MW LSD for 10% capacity factor and above.
With pipeline gas available, the costs at 80% capacity factor for Guadeloupe are US$708/kWyear and 8.2 US cents/kWh. The costs are above the corresponding values for Martinique: US$604/kW-year and 10.1 US cents/kWh. Guadeloupes higher gas cost (levelized US$10.88/GJ vs. US$8.98 for Martinique) causes the increase.
2,500
80 Fossil LCL Guad, US$/kW-yr 20 MW GT GP Guad US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD GP Guad US$/kW-yr 70

Cost, US cents/kWh
9-21
2,000
60 50 40
1,500
Fossil LCL Guad, US cents/kWh 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 9-11 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe with No Geothermal The geothermal power plant / submarine cable costs are nearly the same for Guadeloupe as for Martinique. Figure 9-9 compares the cost of the geothermal plant / submarine cable project to the Fossil LCL. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The geothermal project is lower in cost than the Fossil LCL at capacity factors above about 52%. At 80% capacity factor the geothermal power plant / submarine cable project costs 7.1 US cents/kWh, compared to Fossil LCL costs of 10.1 cents/kWh for Guadeloupe. Thus, the net benefits the difference between the Fossil LCL and the geothermal plant / submarine cable line are significantly larger than for Martinique. The higher gas cost makes the economic window larger. The wind projects are also more economic than for Martinique, though the impact is less at the lower capacity factors for the wind projects.
2,500
Fossil LCL Guad, US$/kW-yr
80 70
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-22
100 MW 75 km Geo Dom Expo US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr
2,000
60 50 40 30 20
1,500
Fossil LCL Guad, US cents/kWh 100 / 75 Geo Dom Exp US cents/kWh
1,000
500
10
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 9-12 Fossil Least Cost Lines for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100 MW We also evaluated the case where the geothermal power plant / submarine cable project was sized for 50 MW rather than 100 MW. We assumed that the submarine cables capital cost at 50 MW would be 67% of the 100 MW costs, not 50%. Figure 9-13 shows the impact of this change. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The geothermal / submarine cable projects costs are below the Fossil LCL at capacity factors above 62%. The net benefits are reduced but still sizeable.
2,500
Fossil LCL Guad, US$/kW-yr
80 70
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-23
2,000
50 MW 75 km Geo Dom Exp US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL Guad, US cents/kWh
60 50 40
1,500
50 / 75 Geo Dom Exp US cents/kWh
1,000
30 20
500
10
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 9-13 Fossil Least Cost Line for Guadeloupe vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection at 50 MW 9.2.2.4 Nevis Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico was not among the countries studied in detail. Nexans provided cost and performance estimates for a 400 MW HV DC, 400 km submarine cable from Nevis to Puerto Rico. Figure 9-20 presents conceptual map for this interconnection. Here we provide a scopinglevel evaluation of that potential project. Figure 9-11 compares the cost of power from a project that includes 400 MW of geothermal generation in Nevis and the submarine cable and related facilities to two potential alternatives in Puerto Rico. The scale for the solid lines is on the left, the scale for the dotted lines is on the right. There is no Fossil LCL because we did not prepare a resource plan for Puerto Rico. Instead, we compare the cost of the geothermal / submarine cable project to two specific resources. Puerto Rico already has an LNG terminal and might be able to build another, so one option is a 400 MW combined cycle using LNG-derived natural gas priced the same as it would be in the Dominican Republic. However, the more likely scenario is that the imports from Nevis will replace HFO, because most of the power plants in Puerto Rico are HFO-fueled steam plants. We assume that the steam plants capital and annual fixed O&M costs are 67% of those for a conventional coal-fueled power plant, and that the HFO-fueled plant has a heat rate of 10,600 kJ/kWh.
Figure 9-14 shows that the geothermal plant / submarine cable project is considerably lower in cost that the HFO fueled steam plant, but higher in cost than the LNG-derived natural gas option except at the highest capacity factors. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right.
400 MW CC LNG PR US$/kW-yfr
2,500
4x100 MW 400 km Geo Nevis Exp US$/kW-yr 356 MW ST HFO PR US$/kW-yr
80 70
2,000
4x100 MW Geo Nevis Exp US cents/kWh 400 MW CC LNG PR US cents/kWh
1,500
356 MW ST HFO PR US cents/kWh
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 9-14 HFO Steam Plant for Puerto Rico vs. Fossil Fuel Options for Florida and Interconnection at 400MW Because most of Puerto Ricos generation is HFO fueled steam plants, the HFO line seems more appropriate to use as a source of benefits. Using that approach, the net benefits the difference between the HFO fueled steam plant and the geothermal plant / submarine cable line are about the same as the net benefits for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts. HFO is less costly than distillate, but the steam plants have higher heat rates than the LSD units on the smaller islands. The net benefit is about 14.5 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at about 26% capacity factor. 9.2.2.5 Nevis US Virgin Islands (USVI)
The US Virgin Islands was not among the countries studied in detail. Nexans provided cost and performance estimates for a 80 MW HV DC, 320 km submarine cable from Nevis to Puerto Rico. Here we provide a scoping-level evaluation of that potential project, presented on the map
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-24
60
on Figure 9-20. Figure 9-15 compares the cost of power from a project that includes 80 MW of geothermal generation in Nevis and the submarine cable and related facilities to what might be its alternative in the USVI, a 5 MW LSD fueled with distillate. There is no Fossil LCL because we did not prepare a resource plan for USVI. Instead, we compare the cost of the geothermal / submarine cable project to the 5 MW LSD. The scale for the solid lines is on the left, the scale for the dotted lines is on the right. Figure 9-15 shows that the geothermal plant / submarine cable project provides small benefits and then only at high capacity factors. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. It is interesting that a long, expensive submarine cable moving a relatively small amount of power still is marginally competitive compared to distillate-fueled power generation. Geothermal power generation is so much less costly that transportation costs well in excess of the geothermal power cost do not completely compromise its economic advantage. Some of the assumptions may overstate the costs of the submarine cable. For example, we assume losses of 100 watts per meter, the same as for all the other submarine cable cases. However, in this case that amounts to 32 MW cable losses out of 80 MW at the sending end. The cable might be re-optimized to reduce losses without increasing cost proportionally.
2,500
80 MW 320 km Geo Nevis Exp US$/kW-yr 5 MW MSD Dist USVI US$/kW-yr
80 70
2,000
80 MW 320 km Geo Nevis Exp US cents/kWh 5 MW MSD Dist USVI US cents/kWh
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 9-15 Fossil Fuel Option for USVI vs. Geothermal Plant / Submarine Interconnection
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-25
60
9.2.2.6
Saba Sint Maarten
Neither Saba nor Sint Maarten was among the countries studied in detail. Nexans provided cost and performance estimates for a 100 MW, 60 km submarine cable from Saba to Sint Maarten. Here we provide a scoping-level evaluation of that potential project which assumes that the demand in Sint Maarten is sufficient to support 100 MW. Figure 9-21 presents conceptual map for this interconnection. Saint Martin, which shares the same island with Sint Maarten, operates at 50 Hz instead of Sint Maartens 60 Hz, so there would be complications to try to combine their demand. Figure 9-16 compares the cost of power from a project that includes 100 MW of geothermal generation in Nevis and the submarine cable and related facilities to one potential alternative in Sint Maarten: 20 MW distillate fueled LSDs. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. Figure 9-16 shows that the geothermal plant / submarine cable project is considerably lower in cost that the distillate fueled LSD at high capacity factors, and is lower in cost above a capacity factor of about 24%. The net benefits the difference between the distillate fueled LSD and the geothermal plant / submarine cable line are somewhat less than net benefits for Dominica, Nevis, and St. Kitts. The 20 MW LSD in Sint Maarten has slightly lower costs than the 5 MW MSD used in the other islands, and the addition of the submarine cable costs increase the cost of the combined project, both of which reduce the net benefits. The net benefit is a little over 12 cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at about 24% capacity factor.
9-26
2,500
80
20 MW LSD Dist StM US$/kW-yr

70 60 50 40
100 MW 60 km Geo Saba Exp US$/kW-yr 100 / 60 Geo Saba Exp US cents/kWh 20 MW LSD Dist StM US cents/kWh Cost, US cents/kWh
9-27
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Capacity Factor, %
80% 90%
Figure 9-16 Fossil Fuel Option for Sint Maarten vs. Geothermal plant / Submarine Interconnection at 100MW 9.2.2.7 United States Cuba
Neither Cuba nor the United States were among the countries studied in detail. Nexans provided cost and performance estimates for a 400 MW HV DC, 400 km submarine cable from Nevis to Puerto Rico with a maximum depth of 1,000 meters. Figure 9-23 presents conceptual map for this interconnection. The parameters for that submarine cable are identical to a cable from Florida to Cuba. The source of generation in the US would not be geothermal, however. In this case it is not clear which fuel and technology would be the source of the generation sent to Cuba. Natural gas and coal fuel most of the generation in Florida, so we will investigate both of those. The natural gas price is the average price for US power plants. Florida imports all its coal from other states, so the coal priced used is the average price for coal for exports, even though that price in the EIA data refers to exports to other countries. The natural gas fuels combined cycles with parameters similar to a 100 MW plant, but with a heat rate of 8,500 kJ/kWh. The coal fuels a conventional coal steam plant with parameters similar to a 300 MW plant, but with a heat rate of 10,000 kJ/kWh. Nearly all the power plants in Cuba are crude oil or HFO-fueled steam turbine-based plants. We use the parameters for the same HFO-fueled steam plant as for Puerto Rico. We size the plant in Cuba at 356 MW because losses reduce deliveries from Florida to that amount.
Figure 9-17 shows that the both combinations of fossil plant in the US / submarine cable are considerably lower in cost that the HFO fueled steam plant in Cuba. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right.
400 MW Coal US Exp US$/kW-yr
2,500
356 MW ST HFO Cuba US$/kW-yr 400 MW CC Gas US Exp US$/kW-yr
80 70 60 50 40
400 MW CC Gas US Exp US cents/kWh 356 MW ST HFO Cuba US cents/kWh
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 9-17 Fossil Fuel Option for Cuba vs. Fossil Plants / Submarine Interconnection at 400 MW The net benefit of the coal plant is 13 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at about 23% capacity factor. The net benefit of the gas plant is 15.4 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at close to zero capacity factor. Breakeven is at a low capacity factor because the capital costs of the power plants are about the same. 9.2.3 Evaluation - Land Interconnection, Haiti and Dominican Republic
This is the only project added by Nexant; all the others involve geothermal power generation and submarine cables and were developed by West Indies Power and Nexans (submarine cable supplier). The interconnection is a 563 km 110 kW line between Port-au-Prince and Santo Domingo. Figure 9-22 presents conceptual map for this interconnection. The lines normal rating is about
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-28
2,000
400 MW Coal US Exp US cents/kWh
250 MW, but the demand served in Haiti averages 130 MW over the study period. The lines cost, including substations and related facilities at each end, is US$246 million, about US$435,000 per km and US$1,890 per kW served. Assumed O&M cost is 2% of investment per year. In Haiti the displaced fuel is distillate used in a 20 kW LSD, but with a heat rate of 9,500 kJ/kWh to reflect the poor condition of many of the existing units in Haiti. The fuels evaluated as candidates to generate power for export in the Dominican Republic are HFO, which is the prevalent fuel for power generation in the DR, and natural gas from LNG. The DR has an existing LNG terminal with spare capacity and might build another if needed. The HFO is used in a 300 MW steam plant at a heat rate of 10,600 kJ/kWh, reflecting the likelihood that DR would export its relatively costly power rather than its lowest cost power. Another reason for using this as the source of the delivered is that the DR may not proceed with expansion of its ability to import coal or LNG. If the DR were willing to export power from one of its lower cost generation sources and expands its LNG facilities, the export power could be from natural gas used in a 100 MW combined cycle with a heat rate of 8,000 kJ/kWh. Figure 9-18 compares the cost of the displaced generation in Haiti to the cost of the delivered generation from the DR. 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. If the source of the power from DR is from HFO, the costs exceed the benefits of displacing distillate-based generation in Haiti. HFO is less costly than distillate, but the cost of the interconnection overcomes that advantage. If the source of the power from DR is from natural gas, there are net benefits of 9.6 US cents/kWh at 80% capacity factor, less at lower capacity factors until breakeven at 27% capacity factor. Assuming that the HFO-based generation would be the candidate for export, the combination of generation and interconnection offers no net benefit. Part of the problem is the relatively high cost of the interconnection. Its cost in $/km is well below any of the submarine cable cases and only slightly below the USVI British Virgin Islands link (not studied here). However, its cost in $/kW is well above any of the submarine cable cases except Nevis USVI, and $/kW is what counts in the calculations of cost/kW-yr and cost/kWh. The cost advantage of HFO over distillate is small in comparison.
9-29
2,500
60 50 40
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 9-18 Fossil Fuel Option for Haiti vs. Fossil Plants / Land Interconnection at 130 MW
Cost, US cents/kWh
9-30
2,000
20 MW LSD Dist Haiti US$/kW-yr 100 MW CC LNG DR Exp US$/kW-yr 300 MW ST HFO DR Exp US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist Haiti US cents/kWh 100 MW CC LNG DR Exp US cents/kWh 300 MW ST HFO DR Exp US cents/kWh
80 70
Figure 9-19 Dominica Interconnections
9-31
Figure 9-20 Nevis Puerto Rico and Nevis US Virgin Islands Interconnections
9-32
Figure 9-21 Saba St. Maarten Interconnection
9-33
Figure 9-22 Haiti Dominican Republic Interconnection
9-34
Figure 9-23 United States (Florida) Cuba Interconnection
9-35
9.3
NORTHERN RING INTERCONNECTION
The Northern Ring is 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. One possible set of interconnections, including undersea cables and overhead line segments, is presented on Figure 9- 24. Other interconnections within the northern Caribbean might also be considered, for example from Florida directly to Haiti, or from Haiti to Jamaica. A modified set of interconnections directly linking Florida to Haiti is presented on Figure 9-25. The benefits of the Northern Ring might include: The general benefits of interconnections in reducing reserve requirements, providing emergency support, and many others Access to low-cost geothermal power from Nevis Access to low cost power from Florida generated from coal, natural gas, and/or nuclear
Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, and Jamaica currently use primarily or exclusively high-cost fuel, limiting prospects for electricity trade among them, and making it difficult to justify the cost of an interconnection. Having access to low-cost power from Nevis and/or Florida could change that situation. Table 9-4 provides basic data and cost estimates for a submarine cable interconnection from Nevis to Puerto Rico. We used the same values for evaluation of a link from Florida to Cuba because the key parameters (depth, length, power capacity) affecting cost were the same. We also evaluated a land-based interconnection between Dominican Republic and Haiti. In this section we present basic data and cost estimates for four potential interconnections that might form part of the Northern Ring: Puerto Rico to Dominican Republic Haiti to Cuba Haiti to Jamaica Florida to Haiti
Figure 9-6 presents a line that fits quite closely the data for five of the seven interconnections for which Nexans provided cost data. The cost per kW is a linear function of the submarine route length in km. We determined the coefficients to define a best fit line for those five points, resulting in the formula Cost/kW = 265 + 2.93 * (distance in km) The two points that the line does not fit have costs well above those predicted by the line. The cost of a specific submarine cable installation is strongly influenced by the details of the route and other requirements. The costs estimated using a best fit line are a rough estimate of what actual costs might be and should be viewed in that light. Table 9-6 presents the results of the analysis.
9-36
Table 9-6 Basic Data and Cost Estimates for Submarine Cable Interconnections
Project Haiti Haiti Cuba Jamaica >1,000 >1,000 200 250 350 kV 350 kV HVDC HVDC 400 400 40 40 8.0 10.0 392.0 390.0 98.0% 0.5% 4.0 388.0 340 1.70 851 120 22 142 482 1,205 2,410 10.2 25.5 115 220 60 60 97.5% 0.5% 4.0 386.1 399 1.60 998 120 22 142 541 1,351 2,162 12.0 29.9 115 138 60 50 Florida Haiti >1,000 1,100 350 kV HVDC 400 40 44.0 356.0 89.0% 0.5% 3.8 352.2 1,395 1.27 3,488 120 22 142 1,537 3,842 1,397 41.9 104.6 220 115 60 60
Parameters Max Depth, Meters Length, Km Voltage MW at Sending End Cable Loss Rate, Watts/meter Cable Losses, MW Output After Cable Losses, MW Output After Losses, % of Output Before Losses Losses in Each Converter or Inverter Station, % Combined Losses in Two Stations, MW Output After Cable & Station Losses, MW Cable System Cost Based on Nexans Correlation, US$ Million Cost/km, US$ Million Cost/kW Sending End, US$ Combined Cost of Converter and Inverter Station @US$150/kW Each, US$ Million Combinced Cost of AC Faciliites at Two DC Stations, US$ Million Combined Cost of Substations and Related Facilities, US$ Million Total Cost of Cable System and Stations, US$ Million Total Cost of Cable System and Stations, $/kW Sending End Total Cost of Cable System and Stations, $/km Sending End Annual Sub Cable O&M at 3% of Investment, Million $/yr, Min $2 Million Annual O&M in $/kW-year Sending End Max Voltage, Sending End System Max Voltage, Receiving End System Frequency, Sending End System Frequency, Receiving End System
PR- DR 400 150 350 kV HVDC 400 40 6.0 394.0 98.5% 0.5% 4.0 390.0 282 1.88 705 120 22 142 423 1,058 2,822 8.5 21.1 220 138 60 60
9-37
The only straightforward interconnection is the one between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The depths are modest and relatively steady across the route, and the distance between the islands is the least of the four. For the other three interconnections, it was not possible to determine a route with maximum depth less than 1,500 meters. The areas between Haiti and Cuba, between Haiti and Jamaica, and offshore the north coast of Cuba (where the cable between Florida and Haiti would have to cross) have extensive undersea canyons and ridges that make determining the exact depths over a route difficult. The costs assume that reasonable routes with maximum depths close to 1,000 meters can be found. We sized each interconnection at 400 MW and 350 kV, the capacity and voltage already used for the Nevis Puerto Rico and Florida Cuba submarine interconnections. A realistic Northern Ring probably would have larger interconnections between the low-cost end points, with interconnections getting progressively smaller towards the center. The state of the art in HV DC submarine cables is 500 kV DC. Higher voltages tend to improve economics and to be used as power levels and distances increase, which might apply for some of the Northern Ring interconnections. This would also help with installations in very deep water because the conductor sizes and hence cable weights would be reduced. For the Northern Ring to make economic sense, each country along the series of interconnections would take off some of the power flowing. As a hypothetical and extremely simplistic example, Cuba might receive 1,000 MW from Florida, keep 400 MW, and deliver 600 MW to Haiti. Haiti would keep 200 MW and deliver 400 to the DR. Each country would pay a proportional share of all interconnections serving it. Importers and exports would share the costs. DR would be responsible for 400/1,000 = 40% of the importers share of the link between Florida and Cuba, 400/600 = 67% of the importers share of the link between Cuba and Haiti, and 100% of the importers share of the link between Haiti and DR. Unit costs would obviously be higher for the middle islands. The land-based transmission systems within the countries would have to be strengthened to move power across the country to the next converter or invert station. The costs shown in Table 9-6 do not include any costs associated with strengthening the land-based transmission systems within the countries. 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. Because costs for the middle islands would involve their sharing some of the costs of interconnections closer to the low-cost source, making favorable economics more difficult to achieve.
9-38
Figure 9-24 Northern Ring Set of Interconnections
9-39
Figure 9-25 Northern Ring Interconnections Alternative
9-40
Section 10
10.1 OVERVIEW OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Study Analytical Approach
The Study includes three main analytical procedures: Determining fuel prices for different fuels / fuel delivery mechanisms at each island of primary interest in the Study. Section 7 addresses this issue. Screening analysis to determine the optimum set of fuel and technology for each island and each potential interconnection. This is addressed in Section 8.6 for renewable energy projects in general and Nevis and Dominica in particular, in Section 9.2 for submarine cable and land-based interconnections, and Section 11 for the individual islands. Scenario analysis to determine the optimum set of resources (fossil fuels, renewable energy power generation, and interconnections) for the set of main Study islands. This is addressed in Sections 12, 13, and 14. SCREENING ANALYSIS APPROACH
10.2
Screening curve analysis is based on a spreadsheet analysis of the following power plant parameters: heat rate (fuel efficiency), capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, fuel cost, and estimated costs for transmission upgrades. The screening curve method combines simplified representations of generation costs and system load projections to help identify the optimum mix of generating technologies. The basic approach is to construct cost curves for each technology and then to match the points of intersection with corresponding load points to determine the competitiveness of each technology and the most cost-effective operating regimes and capacities for each technology. The technique captures the major tradeoffs between capital costs, operating costs, and level of use for proposed types of new generating units. This method recognizes, for example, that the low capital/lower efficiency characteristics of combustion turbines are preferable to high capital/higher efficiency characteristics of combined cycle units for applications requiring small amounts of annual generation. Most important, this method requires only minimal technical and analytical inputs while it quickly eliminates very uncompetitive technologies and provides simplified estimates of optimal technology mixes. The screening curve method expresses the total annual energy production cost for a generating unit, including all capital-related and operating expenses, as a function of the capacity factor. The following equation defines how the cost curves are developed for this approach: Total cost = (annualized fixed costs) + (variable cost X capacity factor X hours per year). Figure 10-1 presents this equation graphically with fixed costs represented by the vertical axis intercept and variable costs shown as the slope of the line. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid line is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted line is on the right. Fixed costs are annualized capital-related costs and annual O&M costs that do not change with the annual kWh production
10-1
of the unit. For example, if the unit cost to build one kW of generating capacity is $500, and the plant's life is 30 years, and a constant capital charge of $60 per kW-year is sufficient to recover all capital-related costs (including depreciation, return, taxes, and insurance) on a net present value basis, then the levelized fixed charge rate is 0.12 (60/500). Fixed O&M costs are expressed in $/kW-year and are the same at all capacity factors. So, as an example, if fixed O&M cost is 7 $/kW-year then stating point, or intercept with vertical axis would be at 67 $/kW. Variable costs are fuel costs and variable O&M costs that do vary with the kWh output of the unit, such as consumables. Typically, the variable costs expressed in $/kWh are known or can be calculated. The variable cost component of total annual energy product cost at a given capacity factor is the variable cost in $/kWh times the hours per year of operation. The capacity factor times 8,760, the number of hours in the year, gives the hours per year of operation. If we continue with our numerical example, if fuel and variable O&M costs add up to 30 $/MWh or 3 cents/kWh, then for each kWh produced costs go up 3 cents. We calculated costs for the range of capacity factors up to 90%, not 100%, because planned and unplanned maintenance make it extremely difficult to exceed 90% capacity factor on a regular basis.
2,500
80 70
2,000 Cost, US cents/kWh

10-2
Example, US$/kW-yr Example, US cents/kWh

1,500
60 50 40
1,000
30 20
500 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, % 0 90%
Figure 10-1 Cost Representation for Screening Analysis Method Figure 10-2 presents screening analysis results showing comparisons among generic technologies: coal-fueled steam plants, distillate-fueled gas turbines, and gas-fueled combined
cycles. The results are strictly illustrative and do not represent analysis of any specific data from or for the Caribbean countries.
2,500 Gas Turbine, US$/kW-yr Combined Cycle, US$/kW-yr Conv Coal, US$/kW-yr Least Cost Line, US$/kW-yr
Annual Cost, $/kW-yea
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, %
Figure 10-2 Illustrative Development of Least Cost Line (LCL) Annual cost curve comparisons can determine which generation resource will serve system load at the lowest cost at each specific capacity factor. In this example, simple cycle distillate fueled gas turbines are the lowest cost generation from zero to 15% capacity factor, gas-fueled combined cycles are least cost from 15% to 55% capacity factor, and conventional coal fired steam plants are least cost from 55% to 90% capacity factor. The blue line is the least cost line and shows by the colors in the square data point markers which resource is on the LCL at each capacity factor. The assumption is that there is no practical limit on fuels for those technologies and those resources can be added to the extent needed and generate across the range of capacity factors.
10-3
On the other hand, renewable resources such as wind and solar photovoltaic can generate only at a limited range of capacity factors because their energy input is intermittent. This means they are not as reliable as fuel-based technologies in meeting load when needed, and the power system must add other capacity as reserve. For wind especially there is usually a limited amount (i.e. available sites with adequate wind) of capacity that could be added to the system. Figure 10-3 illustrates how these resources appear when they are added to the chart. In our example, wind turbines are the lowest cost resource at 15% to 30% capacity factor range, while PV resources are not competitive at any capacity factors. The lowest-cost generation development plan in this illustrative example will likely include a combination of conventional coal steam plants for base-load operation, wind turbines and combined cycles for mid-range operation, and simple cycle gas turbines to meet system peaking requirements.
2,500 Least Cost Line, US$/kW-yr Annual Cost, $/kW-yea 2,000 Wind, US$/kW-yr Solar PV, US$/kW-yr 1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, %
Figure 10-3 Least Cost Line Plus Renewable Energy Resources
10-4
10.3
APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING SCENARIOS
Our approach in developing scenarios, i.e., different supply and interconnection plans, was structured to allow economic evaluation of possible individual country options, and also to take full advantage of the regional opportunities of different fuel and interconnection options and increased development of renewable generation. In building energy supply scenarios we relaxed constraints to capture the economic benefits through mechanisms such as: Remove fuel supply constraints Add interconnections The most economic set of supply options and power plants was built considering all feasible power plants, fuel options and the loads The timing of the initial operation was selected to provide the most economic plan Scenarios which provide full benefits of integration because the interconnected subregion was treated as a single entity for planning and operations
Following those rules we developed regional/sub-regional supply plans addressing the following key strategic issues: How to develop integrated, flexible, and economically optimal development plans for fuel supply, power generation, and transmission for the region? What is the optimal regional mix of generation technologies and resources? What are the timing, size, possible location, and operational role of recommended fuel supply and regional generation and interconnection additions? What are the cost, financing and other implications associated with the regional development plan?
Scenarios were developed taking into account the results of the screening analysis. In building each scenario, screening analysis results were used to limit and define available fuel and resources options for each island. The number of scenarios required was defined by the ability to capture key development options for each country. Our approach was to first develop a reference case, called the Base Case Scenario, which comprises either existing utilities development plans or a continuing business as usual approach to planning. Generation resources were added to each system when they were needed to meet load growth plus reserve margin requirement. This Scenario was used for cost comparisons with other scenarios. Second scenario was developed to analyze different fuel options, which we call the Fuel Scenario. This Scenario includes options for expanding availability of natural gas (including the Eastern Caribbean Gas Pipeline), LNG and coal to the region. We selected and added fuel and the technologies options based on their availability and ranking from the fuel and screening analysis.
10-5
The third Scenario assumes the combined addition of submarine cable interconnections transmitting geothermal power generation and addition of the most attractive new renewable generating resources. We call this Scenario the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Finally, we developed a Scenario which combines the benefits of expanded fuel options and interconnections and renewable generation. We call this Scenario the Integrated Scenario. This Scenario was built to show the costs and potential benefits of combining fuels options with transmission integration and renewable generation options. The Scenarios are described in more details in Section 12. 10.4 POWER SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS APPROACH
Our power system planning approach included all the typically required steps: Gather the necessary data Establish the planning criteria Define the existing generation and transmission systems Prepare load forecast for the entire system based on the individual load forecasts of all utilities Determine the cost and availability of power plant fuels Determine options for new generation and interconnections Develop scenarios to assist in evaluating important development issues Establish and analyze the Base Case development plans Establish and analyze scenarios or alternative development plans Compare the costs and other characteristics of the Base Case and alternative scenarios
With the load forecast and other data in hand, the first analytical step was to conduct a screening curve analysis of generating options. Screening analysis is described in more detail in Section 11. Based on the results of screening analysis, we conducted a more accurate system expansion and production simulation analysis. This more detailed system analysis step involved comparison of scenarios using yearly expansion and production simulation analysis. The analysis was based on extensive inputs about the existing system, future conditions, and characteristics of new power plants, described in earlier sections. To conduct the system analysis we developed a spreadsheet based model that simulates the operation of the generation system over the entire 2009 2028 study period. The model calculates supply/demand balances for the planning period based on the electric demand forecast and the expected future production from existing and planned resources. Electric capacity and energy supply/demand balances are prepared for each year. On the demand side, the capacity balance used peak demand and calculated required reserve margin based on the capacity reliability criteria (i.e., reserve margin). Reserve margin is a relatively simple approach for determining system reliability and the need for new generation
10-6
resources. Reserve margin is dependent on the system size, so our model used three different levels of reserve margin dependent on the size of the system: reserve margin of 35% for systems up to 150 MW in peak demand, 30% for systems up to 600 MW and 25% for larger systems. These values compare well with the planning reserve margins used by utilities in the region. Each county plan was developed to meet the set reserve margin reliability criteria. The supply/demand comparison indicated the required capacity additions by year and by country. All resources, except for wind, are assumed to contribute to the reserve margin with their full net capacity. Capacity of generators used for power exports are not contributing to the reserve margin of the exporting or importing islands. Wind generation was also assumed to have no contribution to the reserve margin. So power exports and wind development did not affect resource development plans and benefits are based only on energy generation savings. After developing the capacity balance, the model calculated the energy balance from available resources. Energy production for each unit was developed taking into account the type of unit, unit operating costs (e.g. fuel and O&M costs), forced and maintenance outage rates, and the limit on energy production typical for renewable units. A discounted cost analysis, using economic costs, was developed to evaluate selected combinations of resource additions and interconnection options. The discounted cost analysis covered the entire planning period, taking into account salvage value for all investments done during the planning period. The salvage value was calculated based on the in-service year using the straight line depreciation and a 30 year life for all generation and transmission project, other than for diesel units, for which we assumed a 20 year useful life. This total discounted cost formed the basis for cost comparisons between Scenarios. The analysis was based on a 10% discount rate, applied to the costs expressed in constant 2009 US$. This rate is considered representative for financing future generation and interconnection projects in the region.
10-7
Section 11
Screening Analysis Results
The primary objective of this section is to present screening curves that illustrate the least cost resources for each country under different circumstances. The least cost resources for a country may include geothermal power imported from another country via submarine cable or power plants served by fuels not presently available at most islands, such as LNG, CNG, pipeline gas, and coal. Section 11.2 provides these screening curves. Section 11.1 provides some foundation information on fossil fuels. 11.1 FOSSIL FUELS
11.1.1 Distillate Figure 11-1 shows screening curves for distillate-fueled technologies, including: 20 MW and 50 MW simple cycle gas turbine (GT) 100 MW and 300 MW combined cycles (CC) 5 MW medium speed diesel (MSD) and 20 MW low speed diesel (LSD)
Figure 11-1 shows that: The larger plant of each type is slightly less costly The GT are lowest in cost at zero capacity factor, but become more costly than the other technologies by 5% capacity factor The MSD and LSD are slightly lower in cost than the CC
We did not include the 10 MW MSD because the figure is already crowded; its line would fall between the other two diesels. Although the results indicate that the 20 MW LSD is slightly lower in cost than the 300 MW CC, large combined cycles are being built around the world and there are few if any installations of LSD approaching 300 MW at single site. Using a rough guideline that the largest unit should be no more than 20% of peak demand, in developing resource plans and least-cost curves we will use LSD or MSD for the islands with lower demand and the combined cycles where their size is justified.
11-1
2,500
2,000
1,500
20 MW LSD Dist, US$/kW-yr 20 MW GT Dist, US$/kW-yr 100 MW CC Dist, US$/kW-yr 300 MW CC Dist, US$/kW-yr 5 MW MSD Dist, US$/kW-yr 50 MW GT Dist, US$/kW-yr
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, %
Figure 11-1 Screening Curves for Distillate-fueled Technologies 11.1.2 Distillate vs. HFO Distillate is more widely used than HFO, but is also more costly. HFO is not suitable for GT and CC, and is more polluting and harder on the machines. Figure 11-2 shows the cost impact of using distillate and HFO in a 5 MW MSD and in a 20 MW LSD. The HFO lines appear to fall only slightly below the distillate lines. However, the economic advantage is significant at 80% capacity factor, about US$107/kW-yr and US cents 1.6/kWh. Where it can be used the economic advantage is clear. The choice of distillate or HFO is essentially a policy matter that might be decided on the basis of emissions, esthetics, or other issues. There has been a significant economic incentive to use HFO in recent years, which probably has contributed to the desire expressed by some Caribbean utilities to move to HFO. According to the EIA historical data and forecast, from 2006 2008 distillate price (in 2009 US$) delivered to US power plants exceeded the comparable HFO price by US$5.59/GJ and 60%. In our analysis Caribbean prices are 12% higher, but the ratio is the same. The EIA forecast for 2009 was to exceed by US$6.48/GJ and 82%. EIAs long-term forecast showed much less difference. Levelized over the period 2014 2028, the difference in the forecast was for distillate to exceed HFO by US$1.84/GJ and 10%. Figure 11-2 is based on the 2014 2028 levelized values for distillate and HFO in the Caribbean. If recent historical differences turn out to be maintained, the cost advantage of HFO would increase proportionally.
2,500
20 MW LSD Dist
20 MW LSD HFO 5 MW MSD Dist
1,500
5 MW MSD HFO
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, %
Figure 11-2 Distillate vs. HFO Cost Comparison 11.1.3 Coal For distillate and HFO, the same price applies for each island. Analysis of the use of coal as a fuel is complicated by the fact the price of coal varies among the islands because the cost of delivery to the island varies. The smaller the islands demand for coal, the higher the price because the fixed costs of the coal delivery system are spread over fewer GWH. Four different coal prices apply: Dominica has such small demand that coal is not a practical option there. Coal 10&20MW applies to islands where the coal demand is sufficient only for 10 MW of capacity in 2014 and 20 MW in 2028. The levelized price over 2014 2028 is US$12.31/GJ. The countries where this applies are Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines. Coal 25MW applies to islands where the coal demand is sufficient only for 25 MW of capacity in both 2014 and 2028. The levelized price over 2014 2028 is US$9.04/GJ. This price applies only in St. Lucia. Coal 25&50MW applies to islands where the coal demand is sufficient only for 25 MW of capacity in 2014 and 50 MW 2028. The levelized price over 2014 2028 is
11-3
US$7.77/GJ. The countries where this applies are Barbados, Guadeloupe, Haiti, and Martinique. Coal 100&200MW applies to islands where the coal demand is sufficient only for 100 MW of capacity in 2014 and 200 MW in 2028. The levelized price over 2014 2028 is US$4.36/GJ. This price applies only in Jamaica. Coal 200&500MW applies to islands where the coal demand is sufficient only for 200 MW of capacity in 2014 and 500 MW in 2028. The levelized price over 2014 2028 is US$4.19/GJ. This price applies only in Dominican Republic
The technology options help untangle this complication. For islands with smaller demand for coal, only small capacity machines are suitable to remain below a size 20% or less of peak demand. Figure 11-3 shows screening curves for the coal-fueled technologies bulleted below using the highest coal price, Coal 10&20MW. The highest coal price does not apply to the larger plant sizes because they would be used only in places where high peak demand would bring lower coal costs. The objective of using the same fuel price was to gain a better understanding of the relative costs of the technologies. The screening curves for the individual islands will use the fuel costs specific to each island. 10, 25, and 50 MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB) steam plants 100 MW and 300 MW conventional coal steam plants
Figure 11-3 shows that: The larger plant of each type is slightly less costly The 300 MW conventional coal plant and 50 MW CFB plant are virtually identical in cost The 10 MW CFB is more costly than the other options, all of which are close in cost
11-4
2,500
100 MW Conv Coal Plant Coal 10&20MW

300 MW Conv Coal Plant Coal 10&20MW 10 MW CFB Coal 10&20MW 25 MW CFB Coal 10&20MW
1,500
50 MW CFB Coal 10&20MW
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Capacity Factor, %
Figure 11-3 Screening Curves for Coal-fueled Technologies 11.2 SCREENING CURVES FOR INDIVIDUAL ISLANDS
11.2.1 Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines Figure 11-4 presents the Fossil Least-Cost Curve (LCL) that applies for three countries with the same technology choices and fuel prices, and roughly the same demand: Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 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. Distillate and coal were the potentially economic fuels; CNG and LNG prices were above distillate. The Fossil LCL comprises the 20 MW GT on distillate for zero capacity factor, the 10 MW MSD on distillate for capacity factors from 5% to 50%, and the coal-fueled CFB for capacity factors from 55% to 90%. It is questionable whether it would be worthwhile to install a GT that operated for so few hours per year. The coal plant offers clear benefits, but would require significantly more up-front capital for both the plant and the coal transportation facilities than the distillate-based MSD. In addition, a coal plant has more environmental issues than a distillate-fueled plant. Figure 11-4 also shows that wind is lowest in cost at the capacity factors where it might operate at a good site. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 10 MW MSD at 5%
11-5
capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Other renewable energy plants might also contribute, if good sites can be found.
2,500
80
2,000
60 50 40 30 20
1,500
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-4 Fossil LCL and Wind for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines 11.2.2 Barbados Figure 11-5 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for Barbados. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for capacity factor of zero and 5% and a 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas for capacity factors from 10% through 90%. Because it is closer to Tobago, the source of the gas pipeline, than the other countries being served by the pipeline, Barbados has the lowest cost gas of any country. Its Fossil LCL is lower than any other countrys. This is good for the country but makes it harder for other technologies to compete.
Cost, US cents/kWh
11-6
10 MW MSD Dist US$/kW-yr 10 MW CFB Coal 10&20MW US$/kW-yr Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW GT Dist US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
70
2,500
80 70
2,000
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr

1,500
20 MW GT GP US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD GP US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-5 Fossil LCL for Barbados Figure 11-6 illustrates this point. It adds wind and some fossil options to the graph of Figure 115. 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 20 MW LSD at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-6 also illustrates what might occur if pipeline gas were not available for Barbados. The orange line represents the cost of a distillate-fueled 20 MW LSD plant. The green line represents the cost of a coal-fueled 25 MW CFB plant. The lines based on natural gas derived from CNG or LNG would approach the 25 MW CFB line at high capacity factors. Without the gas pipeline, costs will increase by about 50%, or much more if distillate is the only fuel available.
Cost, US cents/kWh
11-7
60
2,500
80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 70 Cost, US cents/kWh
11-8
2,000
1.5 MW Wind w/Backup 25 MW CFB Coal 25&50MW US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
60 50 40 30 20
1,500
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-6 Other Options for Barbados 11.2.3 Dominica and Nevis Section 8.6.3 deals with renewable energy and addresses Dominica and Nevis. 11.2.4 Dominican Republic Section 9.2 deals with interconnections and addresses Haiti and the Dominican Republic, but the feasibility of the interconnection is questionable. Here we evaluate the DR as an isolated system. 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. The DR has the largest demand of any of the main islands studied, which reduces the costs of natural gas delivered by CNG or LNG, or coal, by spreading the fixed costs over more GJ. Nevertheless the price of the lowest cost gas alternative (LNG) is about $2/GJ more than the price of pipeline gas delivered to Barbados. DR coal is about $3.50/GJ less costly than coal for Barbados. Figure 11-7 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for the DR. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 50 MW GT on LNG for capacity factors of zero through 20%, the 300 MW CC on
LNG for capacity factors from 25% through 40%, and the conventional coal plant for capacity factors from 45% through 90%. In order to achieve the Fossil LCL the DR would have to undertake large capital investments for expansion related to coal and LNG transportation, and for coal plants themselves. This may pose a challenge, even if the desire to do so exists. LNG is preferable for application at lower capacity factors, coal for application at higher capacity factors. The scenario analysis provides more information on which is preferable overall, if doing both is not feasible.
2,500
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-7 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic Figure 11-8 adds wind, small hydro, and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-7. The small hydro line coincidentally overlaps with the wind with backup line at capacity factors from 30% to 40%. Wind with backup, which is typically a better comparison than wind without backup, is now marginally economic at the capacity factors where it might operate at a good site. Wind with backup simply adds the full cost of operation of a 50 MW gas turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-8 also illustrates what might occur if neither coal nor LNG is available for future generation for the DR. The periwinkle line represents the cost of a 300 MW HFO-fueled steam plant. The capital and fixed O&M costs are assumed to be 67% of those of a 300 MW
Cost, US cents/kWh
11-9
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 50 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr 300 MW CC LNG US$/kW-yr 300 MW Conv Coal, US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
80 70 60
conventional coal plant. Without expanded supplies of LNG or coal, costs will more than triple at high capacity factors. DR has under construction or planned considerable new small hydro and wind generation. Figure 11-8 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be identified.
2,500
80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 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 Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh 70 Cost, US cents/kWh 60 50 40
2,000
1,500
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-8 Other Options for Dominican Republic 11.2.5 Guadeloupe Section 9.2 deals with interconnections and addresses Guadeloupe and Martinique. Here we evaluate Guadeloupe as an isolated system, though its Fossil LCL is based on pipeline gas. Figure 11-9 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for Guadeloupe. 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 the 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for capacity factors of zero and 5%, and the 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas for capacity factors above 5%.
2,500
80 70
2,000 Annual Cost, $/kW-year
1,500
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD GP Guad US$/kW-yr 20 MW GT GP Guad US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-9 Fossil LCL for Guadeloupe Figure 11-10 adds wind and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-9. 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 20 MW GT fueled with pipeline gas at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-10 also illustrates what might occur if neither pipeline gas nor the geothermal power plant / submarine cable interconnection project is available for future generation for Guadeloupe. The orange line with diamonds represents the cost of a 20 MW LSD fueled by LNG. Its slope is steeper than the Fossil LCL, which above 5% capacity factor is based on the same technology but uses higher priced LNG rather than pipeline gas. The green line is based on a 25 MW CFB using coal. It slowly approaches the Fossil LCL; its lower cost coal fuel price advantage slightly outweighs its heat rate disadvantage. The orange line without diamonds is based on the most expensive fuel, distillate, in a 20 MW LSD. Guadeloupe is fortunate to have these options available. At 80% capacity factor, the gas pipeline provides power at 10.1 US cents/kWh. Comparable values for the coal and LNG are 11.7 US cents/kWh and 12.5 US cents/kWh respectively, whereas for distillate the value is 19.1 US cents/kWh.
Cost, US cents/kWh
60
2,500
80
2,000
1,500
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-10 Other Options for Guadeloupe 11.2.6 Haiti Section 9.2 deals with interconnections and addresses Haiti and the Dominican Republic, but the feasibility of the interconnection is questionable. Here we evaluate Haiti as an isolated system. Haiti has some existing and planned hydro plants, but most of its existing generation is MSD fueled by distillate. Figure 11-11 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for Haiti. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 20 MW GT on LNG for a capacity factor of zero, the 20 MW LSD LNG for capacity factors from 5% through 85%, and the 25 MW coal-fueled CFB for 90% capacity factor. It is questionable whether it would be worthwhile to install a GT that operated for so few hours per year, or a coal plant that offers limited benefits and then only when operating at a very high capacity factor. Assuming the LNG transportation facilities are built, adding coal transportation facilities and the coal plant itself would require significantly more up-front capital. In addition, a coal plant has more environmental issues than a distillate-fueled plant.
Cost US Cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist US$/kW-yr 25 MW CFB Coal 25&50MW US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD LNG Guad US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
70 60
2,500
80 70
1,500
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-11 Fossil LCL for Haiti Figure 11-12 adds wind, small hydro, and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-11. 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 20 MW gas turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-12 also illustrates what might occur if neither coal nor LNG is available for future generation for Haiti. The orange line represents the cost of a 20 MW LSD on distillate. Without expanded supplies of LNG or coal, costs will increase by 65% at high capacity factors. Haiti has plans for a 30 MW hydro facility and is collecting wind data to identify potentially economic wind sites. Figure 11-12 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be identified.
Cost, US cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD LNG US$/kW-yr 25 MW CFB Coal 25&50MW US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
60
2,500
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-12 Other Options for Haiti 11.2.7 Jamaica Figure 11-13 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for Jamaica. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 50 MW GT on LNG for capacity factor from zero to 10%, the 20 MW LSD on LNG for capacity factors from 15% through 45%, and the 50 MW coal-fueled CFB for capacity factors from 50% to 90%. In order to achieve the Fossil LCL the DR would have to undertake large capital investments for expansion related to coal and LNG transportation, and for coal plants themselves. This may pose a challenge, even if the desire to do so exists. LNG is preferable for application at lower capacity factors, coal for application at higher capacity factors. The scenario analysis provides more information on which is preferable overall, if doing both is not feasible. Assuming the LNG transportation facilities are built, adding coal transportation facilities and the coal plant itself would require significantly more up-front capital. In addition, a coal plant has more environmental issues than a distillate-fueled plant.
Cost, US cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Small Hydro US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
80 70 60
2,500
80 Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 70 Cost, US cents/kWh 60 50 40 30 20
20 MW LSD LNG US$/kW-yr 50 MW CFB Coal 100&200MW US$/kW-yr 50 MW GT LNG US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
1,500
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-13 Fossil LCL for Jamaica Figure 11-14 adds wind and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-13. 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 20 MW gas turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-14 also illustrates what might occur if neither coal nor LNG is available for future generation for Jamaica. The orange line represents the cost of a 20 MW LSD on distillate. Without expanded supplies of LNG or coal, costs will more than double at high capacity factors. Jamaica has plans for new wind facilities. Figure 11-14 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be identified.
2,500
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
80 70
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-14 Other Options for Jamaica 11.2.8 Jamaica North Jamaicas demand is concentrated in two areas: the southern coast around Hunts Bay, and around Montego Bay on the northern coast. The two areas are separated by a mountain range and it would be expensive to connect the two areas by gas pipeline. The results in the section above are based on serving 60% of Jamaicas demand, roughly that in the southern area. This section is based on serving the northern area, about 30% of demand. Bogue is the existing power plant serving that area. The results are nearly identical because the only difference comes from a difference in the price of natural gas derived from LNG: levelized 2014-2028 US$10.90/GJ for Jamaica North compared to US$10.16 for the southern coast. The calculated coal price is the same for both locations. The results show significant economic benefits to developing LNG in the north as well as the south, though no comparison of this option compared to the cost of a gas pipeline from the south was conducted. The discussions of the Fossil LCL, comparison of other options to the Fossil LCL, and the consequences of developing neither coal nor LNG facilities is similar to the discussion in the section above and will not be repeated here. Figures presenting the results also differ insignificantly from Figures 11-13 and 11-14 and will not be repeated here.
Cost, US cents/kWh
60
11.2.9 Martinique Section 9.2 deals with interconnections and addresses Guadeloupe and Martinique. Here we evaluate Martinique as an isolated system, though its Fossil LCL is based on pipeline gas. Figure 11-15 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for Martinique. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for capacity factors of zero and 5% and the 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas for capacity factors of 10% and above.
2,500
80 70
2,000
1,500
20 MW GT GP US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD GP US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-15 Fossil LCL for Martinique Figure 11-16 adds wind and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-15. 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 20 MW LSD on pipeline gas at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-16 also illustrates what might occur if neither pipeline gas nor the geothermal power plant / submarine cable interconnection project is available for future generation for Martinique. The orange line represents the cost of a 20 MW LSD fueled by LNG. Its slope is steeper than
Cost, US cents/kWh
60
the Fossil LCL, which above 5% capacity factor is based on the same technology but uses higher priced LNG rather than pipeline gas. The green line is based on a 25 MW CFB using coal. It nearly parallels the Fossil LCL about US$110-150/kW-yr above it. The green line is based on a 25 MW CFB using coal. It slowly diverges from the Fossil LCL; its heat rate disadvantage slightly outweighs its lower cost coal fuel price advantage. The green line is based on the most expensive fuel, distillate, in a 20 MW LSD. Martinique is fortunate to have these options available. At 80% capacity factor, the gas pipeline provides power at 8.5 US cents/kWh. Comparable values for the coal and LNG are 11.7 US cents/kWh and 11.5 US cents/kWh, whereas for distillate the value is 19.1 US cents/kWh.
2,500
80
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-16 Other Options for Martinique 11.2.10 St. Kitts Section 9.2 deals with interconnections and addresses St. Kitts. 11.2.11 St. Lucia Figure 11-17 presents the Fossil LCL that applies for St. Lucia. The scale in $/kW-yr for the solid lines is on the left, the scale in cents/kWh for the dotted lines is on the right. The Fossil LCL comprises the 20 MW GT on pipeline gas for capacity factor of zero and 5% and a 20 MW
Cost, US cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist US$/kW-yr 25 MW CFB Coal 25&50MW US$/kW-yr 20 MW LSD LNG Mart US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
70 60
LSD on pipeline gas for capacity factors from 10% through 90%. In contrast to some of the other islands, coal is too expensive to become part of the Fossil LCL when pipeline gas is available, though it is well below distillate in price. Both CNG and LNG are above distillate in price.
2,500
80 70
2,000

1,500
20 MW LSD GP US$/kW-yr 20 MW GT GP US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
50 40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-17 Fossil LCL for St. Lucia Figure 11-18 adds wind and fossil options to the graph of Figure 11-13. 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 20 MW gas turbine at 5% capacity factor to the costs of wind without backup, which also adds 5% to the capacity factor. Figure 11-18 also illustrates what might occur if neither pipeline gas nor coal are available for future generation for St. Lucia. The orange line represents the cost of a 20 MW LSD on distillate. That technology and fuel combination almost doubles the cost. The green line represents the cost of a 25 MW CFB on coal, which adds about a third to the cost. New fuel options substantially decrease the costs of power generation in St. Lucia. St. Lucia is collecting wind data to determine the feasibility of developing wind generation. Figure 11-18 illustrates the desirability of such an approach where good sites can be identified.
Cost, US cents/kWh
60
2,500
80
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-18 Other Options for St. Lucia
11.3
THE IMPACT OF CO2 COSTS
The results presented thus far have not addressed climate change issues. The vast majority of power generation in the Caribbean is from fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2. One approach to incorporating the impact of CO2 emissions is to attribute a cost to each tonne of such emissions. This might be viewed as a tax or the cost of a license to emit. The cost would provide a disincentive for CO2 emissions and might generate revenues for the government imposing the cost. The resulting higher cost of fossil fuels would open wider the economic window for technologies that produce lower or no CO2 emissions. The objective of this subsection is to evaluate the impact on power generation in the Caribbean of attributing a cost of $50/tonne to CO2 emissions. The focus is on the potential impact on the relative attractiveness of power generation technologies. The US Department of Energy calculated coefficients relating CO2 emissions to fuels based on typical heat content and chemical composition. Using those coefficients, Table 11-1 shows the added cost of CO2 emissions for the main fuels used assuming a CO2 cost of $50/tonne. Table 11-2 shows the impact of the added cost of CO2 emissions on the fuel prices.
Cost. , US cents/kWh
Fossil Least Cost Line, US/kW-yr 20 MW LSD Dist US$/kW-yr 25 MW CFB Med Hi Coal 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL, US cents/kWh
70 60
Table 11-1 Added Cost of Fuels Based on CO2 Cost of US$50/tonne Natural Gas / LNG 50.3 2.52
Emission Coefficient, kg CO2/GJ Added Cost per GJ if CO2 Cost = $50/tonne
Coal 88.2 4.41
Distillate 69.4 3.47
HFO 74.8 3.74
Table 11-2 Impact of CO2 Costs on Fuel Costs Cost, $/GJ, Levelized 2014-2028 Fuel Added Cost Due Total Price to CO2 Emissions Cost 22.45 3.47 25.92 20.46 3.74 24.20 7.00 2.52 9.52 1.90 4.41 6.31 3.47 4.41 7.88 8.73 2.52 11.25 12.73 2.52 15.25 10.16 2.52 12.68 10.90 2.52 13.42 7.39 2.52 9.91 8.98 2.52 11.50 10.49 2.52 13.01 10.88 2.52 13.40 12.31 4.41 16.72 9.04 4.41 13.45 7.77 4.41 12.18 4.85 4.41 9.26 4.19 4.41 8.60
Fuel Distillate HFO Natural Gas Coal for US Power Plants Coal for Export LNG Dom Rep LNG Haiti LNG Jam LNG Jam North GP Barb GP Mart GP StL GP Guad Coal 10&20MW Coal 25MW Coal 25&50MW Coal 100&200MW Coal 200&500MW
% Increase 15% 18% 36% 232% 127% 29% 20% 25% 23% 34% 28% 24% 23% 36% 49% 57% 91% 105%
Table 11-1 shows that costs for CO2 emissions for fossil fuels ranges from US$2.52/GJ to US$4.41/GJ. Renewable energy resources typically would have zero CO2 cost. Table 11-2 shows that the percentage increases are below 20% for the liquid fuels, below 40% for natural gas, and from 36% to 232% for coal. The percentage increase for the liquid fuels is low because the fuel price itself is high. For natural gas, the moderate fuel price and low cost for CO2 produce moderate percentage increases. The coal fuel price is low in some cases, which
combined with the highest CO2 costs gives high percentage increases. Where coal transportation costs are high, the coal fuel price is higher and the percentage increases are moderate. The impact on technology choices may be different on each island, depending on technology limitations as well as fuel costs. The subsections below provide results for islands covering a range of circumstances. 11.3.1 Distillate Only Today distillate is used on and in this Study has the same price on every one of the main Study islands, and distillate and HFO are the predominant fuels used. This Study shows that other fuels and power generation sources could be lower cost in the future, but until that happens the liquid fuels will continue to be the alternative to renewable energy resources. Considering the costs of all fuel options, distillate remains the least cost fuel for Nevis, St. Kitts, and Dominica.
Distillate LCL, US$/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 CO2 $50, US$/kW-yr Distillate LCL, US cents/kWh Distillate LCL CO2 $50, US cents/kWh
2,500
80 70 Cost, US cents/kWh 60 50 40
2,000
1,500
1,000
30 20
500 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, % 0 90%
Figure 11-19 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands Using Only Distillate Figure 11-19 illustrates the impact of a CO2 cost of US$50/tonne on the Distillate LCL on those islands. The figure is similar to Figure 8-13, with the addition of a Distillate LCL based on a CO2 cost of US$50/tonne. 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 higher fuel price did not affect the technology choices, which remain GT for a capacity factor of zero and a MSD for capacity factor of 5% and above. However, at the 80% capacity factor point the CO2 cost adds 14% to the total cost of power, consistent with the increase in distillate cost of 15%. The renewable energy resources that were below the Distillate LCL before are now somewhat more economic, and PV and the Solar Trough with storage edge closer to being competitive 11.3.2 Coal on the Fossil LCL Coal is on the Fossil LCL on three islands with low demand, though greater demand than on Nevis, St. Kitts, and Nevis. Those three islands are Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The coal fuel price is the same on all three islands. The other fuels are not competitive.
2,500
2,000
1,500
50 40
1,000
30 20
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
90%
Figure 11-20 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Coal on Fossil LCL Figure 11-20 illustrates the impact of the CO2 cost of US$50/tonne on the Fossil LCL on those islands. 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 LCLs with and without the CO2 cost are both included. The same technologies appear on the lines: GT on distillate at zero % capacity factor, MSD on distillate, and CFB using coal.
Cost, US cents/kWh
Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL CO2 0, US/kW-yr Solar Trough 6 hr Storage Commercial PV 500 kW 20 MW Geothermal Biomass Small Hydro Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US cents/kWh Fossil LCL CO2 0, US cents/kWh
80 70 60
The GT is least cost only at zero % capacity factor for both Fossil LCL. With no CO2 cost the MSD is least cost from 5% to 50% capacity factor and the CFB on coal is least cost from 55% through 90% capacity factor. The net savings of the CFB its cost subtracted from the cost of the MSD is noticeable over the higher capacity factors. When the CO2 cost is included, the CFB using coal is least cost only at 85% and 90% capacity factors, with the net savings virtually zero. At the 80% capacity factor point the CO2 cost adds 26% to the total cost of power, consistent with the increase in coal cost of 36%. As was the case for the distillate-only islands, the renewable energy resources that were below the Fossil LCL before are now somewhat more economic, and PV and the Solar Trough with storage edge closer to being competitive. The difference is more pronounced at higher capacity factors, with CO2 cost increasing the total cost of power by 26% at the 80% capacity factor point in the coal case compared to 14% in the distillate-only case. 11.3.3 Gas on the Fossil LCL Both the above cases involve islands with low demand and high costs. When gas from the gas pipeline is available, Fossil LCL values are noticeably lower. Figure 11-21 illustrates the impact of the CO2 cost of US$50/tonne on the Fossil LCL for Barbados, the island with the lowest Fossil 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 LCLs with and without the CO2 cost are both included. The same technologies appear on the lines: GT on pipeline gas at zero % and 5% capacity factors and MSD on pipeline gas for capacity factors of 10% and above. Note that the scales on Figure 11-21 are different than those on other similar figures. This was done to separate the lines to make them more visible. As was the case for the distillate-only and coal cases, the renewable energy resources that were below the Fossil LCL before are now somewhat more economic, and PV and the Solar Trough with storage edge closer to being competitive. However, in this case the renewable energy technologies have much less benefit compared to the Fossil LCLs, and wind with storage is marginally competitive, especially when the CO2 cost is not applied. The difference between the two LCLs is more pronounced at higher capacity factors, with CO2 cost increasing the total cost of power by 27%, consistent with the increase in gas cost of 34%.
2,000
40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Capacity Factor, %
0
70% 80% 90%
Figure 11-21 CO2 Cost Impact on Islands with Gas on Fossil LCL 11.3.4 Lowest Price non-Gas Fuels The Dominican Republic is the only main Study country that currently uses either coal or LNG, and it uses both. It has by far the highest demand of any Study country, which gives it the lowest cost fuels apart from pipeline gas. Figure 11-22 illustrates the impact of the CO2 cost of US$50/tonne on the Fossil LCL for DR. 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 LCLs with and without the CO2 cost are both included. Before the CO2 cost is added, the Fossil LCL comprises the 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%. After applying the CO2 cost, the Fossil LCL comprises the 50 MW GT on LNG for capacity factors from zero through 15% and the 300 MW CC for capacity factors from 20% through 90%. The conventional coal plant does not enter the Fossil LCL. Note that the scales on Figure 11-22 are different than those on other similar figures. This was done to separate the lines to make them more visible.
Cost, US cents/kWh
1,500
Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind Turbine 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup Fossil LCL CO2 $0, US/kW-yr Solar Trough 6 hr Storage Commercial PV 500 kW Biomass 20 MW Geothermal Small Hydro Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US cents/kWh Fossil LCL CO2 $0, US cents/kWh
60 50
As was the case for the gas case, the renewable energy resources that were below the Fossil LCL before are now somewhat more economic, and PV and the Solar Trough with storage edge closer to being competitive. The renewable energy technologies have much less benefit compared to the Fossil LCLs, and wind with storage is marginally competitive, especially when the CO2 cost is not applied. The difference between the two LCLs is more pronounced at higher capacity factors, with CO2 cost increasing the total cost of power by 47%, consistent with the increase in coal cost of 105%. The increase in coal cost put LNG-derived gas on the Fossil LCL at high capacity factors, losing the advantage that coal offered before.
2,000
40 30 20
1,000
500
10
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capacity Factor, %
0
90%
Figure 11-22 CO2 Cost Impact on Country with Lowest Non-gas Fuel Prices 11.3.5 Summary The results are consistent with what one would expect. Costs increase and plants with the largest increase in cost due to CO2 costs dispatch less or leave the Fossil LCL. Renewable energy technologies become relatively more attractive. However, most of the renewable technologies are highly attractive to begin with for islands with high cost Fossil LCLs. For the cases with lower Fossil LCLs the advantages of renewable energy options was much less. In these circumstances a CO2 cost might encourage greater development.
Cost, US cents/kWh
1,500
Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind US$/kW-yr 1.5 MW Wind w/Backup US$/kW-yr Small Hydro US$/kW-yr Commercial PV 500 kW Biomass 20 MW Geothermal Solar Trough 6 hr Storage Fossil LCL CO2 0, US$/kW-yr Fossil LCL CO2 $50, US cents/kWh Fossil LCL CO2 0, US cents/kWh
60 50
Section 12
Scenarios
The Study scenarios are based on the analysis of the generation and fuel supply options and also based on the results of the screening analysis. The goal of the preliminary fuel and screening analysis was to define and screen a number of options, so that scenario analysis could include development only of options that passed the earlier tests. The full system analysis included a Base Case Scenario and three Scenarios with changed parameters designed to evaluate the impact of specific types of changes. The three Scenarios are: Fuel Scenario, Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, and Integrated Scenario. The Scenarios were designed to address the range of potential development options, resulting in a well defined and limited number of analysis runs. 12.1 BASE CASE SCENARIO
In developing the Base Case Scenario we used, where available, country development plans and related data. We had to identify and resolve data gaps and in many cases develop or extend development plans to cover the entire planning period, resolve any inconsistencies, and in general create complete plans. The Base Case Scenario assumption, for most countries, was that the generation development will continue to be based on the exiting fuel and generation technology options (i.e., business as usual scenario). For most countries this implies continued development of diesel units using distillate fuel. Exceptions were the larger power systems in Dominican Republic and Jamaica with the existing, or planned, coal and LNG fuel options. For the Dominican Republic we used LNG and for Jamaica we used imported coal as the Base Case fuel options. Several countries have generating units that are already under construction, or far enough along in development, to be considered committed from the planning perspective. Those units were added to the generation plans in the same year in all scenarios, so their assumed additions do not impact scenario results. Also the Base Case Scenario did not assume additional fuel options, renewable generation, or any interconnections. This was done on purpose to assure that we can account for all benefits of those options when developing subsequent scenarios. The size of assumed power plant additions was based on the technology, fuel options, and the size of the system for all scenarios. Individual country development costs were then merged to develop Base Case costs for the entire region. These Base Case costs were used as the staring point for comparison with other Scenarios.
12-1
12.2
FUEL SCENARIO
The Fuel Scenario assumption, for many countries, was that the generation development could be based on an alternate, and potentially less expensive, fuel and generation technology options. Fuels were selected based on the fuel analysis results, and country by country this scenario assumes: Imported coal for Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and St. Vincent and Grenadines. Natural gas via pipeline for Barbados and St. Lucia Imported coal for Dominican Republic LNG for Jamaica
No alternative fuel option was considered for Dominica and St. Kitts and Nevis because preliminary analysis showed that no option offering potentially lower costs was available. The relatively small demand on all these islands means that fixed costs associated with other fuel transportation modes are spread over fewer GJ than on other islands and make the other options more costly than distillate. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario and Integrated Scenario include geothermal development as the preferred alternative to distillate. The Fuel Scenario did not assume additional renewable generation or interconnections. This was done on purpose to assure that this scenario accounts only for the costs and benefits associated with selected fuel options. Individual country development costs were then merged to develop summary Fuel Scenario costs for the entire region, later used for comparison with other Scenarios. 12.3 INTERCONNECTION/RENEWABLE SCENARIO
The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario was developed to analyze the effects of potential renewable and interconnection development options. We combined interconnections and renewable energy development because most of the interconnections involved generating geothermal power in one country and exporting the power to other countries. Based on the screening analysis, the economically attractive renewable generation options included geothermal and wind generation. Country by country this scenario assumes: Wind development for Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominican Republic Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and Grenadines. Geothermal development and cable interconnections for Dominica (with Martinique and Guadeloupe) and for Nevis (with St. Kitts and Puerto Rico) Transmission interconnection for Dominican Republic with Haiti
Wind generation development was limited to around 15% of the system peak load. This amount was considered adequate to show the potential cost impact. Of course, future development of wind on each island will depend on the availability of good sites for wind generation.
12-2
The Dominican Republic Haiti transmission interconnection was the only interconnection case for which the scenario did not include geothermal power development. The scenario analysis had to be done independently using two cases (i.e., two steps). The first step was to analyze the merit of transmission interconnection without renewable generation. The second step was to analyze the addition of renewable generation without the transmission interconnection. All other systems had either a renewable option or a dependent geothermal/interconnection option that could be analyzed with one scenario. This scenario uses the same fossil fuel options as in the Base Case. This was done so that the scenario results (i.e., differences from the Base Case) account only for the costs and benefits associated with interconnections and renewable generation options. Individual country development costs were then merged to develop an Interconnection/Renewable Scenario costs for the entire region (including accounting for interconnection costs and energy export benefits), later used for comparison with other Scenarios. 12.4 INTEGRATED SCENARIO
The Integrated Scenario was designed to include beneficial options from all earlier Scenarios (i.e., options showing cost savings) and evaluate the impact of integrated (i.e., combined) development of several options. This Scenario included all development options which showed cost savings from earlier, specialized, Scenario analysis. Analysis of the combined impact is an important step, since it shows the interdependences of development options. An example is the development of a renewable option, which could show significant benefits when replacing high cost distillate generation in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, but could have much smaller or no benefits if, in the Integrated Scenario, development also includes lower cost gas via pipeline as the fossil fuel. As for the other Scenarios, individual country development costs were then merged to develop Integrated Scenario costs for the entire region (including accounting for interconnection costs and energy export benefits), later used for comparison with other scenarios and to develop final study conclusions and recommendations.
12-3
Section 13
Scenario Analysis Results
This section contains summary results of system analysis for the four Scenarios described in Section 12. For each Scenario, the summary results include: For the Base Case Scenario and the Fuel Scenario, total system production cost and investment cost results For the Interconnection / Renewable Scenario and the Integrated Scenario, total system production, investment cost, and interconnection cost
For those who are interested in more details, please refer to Attachment A, which provides system analysis results for all four Scenarios by country. For each Scenario, for each country (or island) results are presented in three tables: capacity balance, energy balance, and cost summary tables. The capacity balance table for each country includes: Peak Load in MW based on the country load forecast by year Exports(+)/Imports(-) in MW Net Capacity in MW for all existing units (capacity decreases if there is assumed unit retirement during the planning period) Total capacity in MW for existing units Required Capacity in MW calculated as peak demand increased by the reserve margin requirements (reserve margin requirement applies only to the local demand) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) in MW shows required unit additions (i.e., existing units minus required capacity) New Capacity in MW shows capacity for each unit assumed to be built during the planning period Total Capacity in MW shows capacity for all existing and new units System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions in MW shows the overall system capacity surplus (+) or deficit (-) after unit additions Reserve Margin in % shows the calculated percent of capacity above the peak load.
The energy balance table includes: Energy in GWh based on the country load forecast by year Exports(+)/Imports(-) in GWh Generation in GWh by unit Total Generation in GWh shows total generation for all existing and new units matching the required energy
13-1
The cost summary table includes: 13.1 Fuel and O&M costs in million US$ by unit including fuel and variable and fixed O&M costs Production Costs in million US$ shows total system production costs (i.e., fuel and O&M costs) Investment Costs in million US$ shows total cost for building new generation units Total System Costs shows a sum of production and investment costs BASE CASE SCENARIO SUMMARY
The individual country subsections below summarize the main resource additions for each of them for the Base Case Scenario. 13.1.1 Antigua and Barbuda For all four Scenarios, assumed committed system additions are six 5 MW Casada Gardens units during 2011-2013. Those unit additions would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system will require 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. 13.1.2 Barbados For all four Scenarios, assumed committed system additions are nine 16 MW Trent units. 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. 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. 13.1.3 Dominica 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 using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 15 MW (3 x 5 MW units) to meet the required capacity. 13.1.4 Dominican Republic During the first years, during 2009-2011, installation of the assumed already committed hydro and wind resources will cover the load growth. Starting in 2012 the Dominican Republic will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 300
13-2
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 CC units) and 100 MW of GT units. 13.1.5 Grenada Grenada will require new capacity addition starting in 2013. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. 13.1.6 Haiti Haitis power system is already short of generation resources in 2009. We calculated that the already committed resources and 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. Starting in 2010 the system will need another 20 MW, or 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. 13.1.7 Jamaica 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. 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. 13.1.8 St. Kitts and Nevis 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. 13.1.9 St. Lucia 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 using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 80 MW (4 x 20 MW units) to meet the required capacity. 13.1.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines St. Vincent and Grenadines will require new capacity additions starting in 2017. For the Base Case Scenario, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using
13-3
distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. 13.1.11 Total System Costs Tables 13-1 and 13-2 present total system production and investment cost (in 2009 US$) results. The Production Cost Summary table also includes a row for fuel savings associated with energy exports outside the modeled region. The costs for supplying those exports are included in the production and investment costs of the exporting country. The Investment Cost Summary table also includes the salvage value for all investments at the end of the planning period. The Base Case assumes no interconnection among islands and thus shows no fuel savings associated for energy exports or interconnection costs.
13-4
Table 13-1 Base Case Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,588 39 111 888 27 12 58 28 0 3,020 2012 74 223 15 1,637 45 133 912 30 15 65 32 0 3,182 2013 76 234 16 1,729 47 151 983 32 16 69 35 0 3,389 2014 81 252 17 1,834 52 175 987 34 17 74 39 0 3,564 2015 86 268 19 1,827 56 199 987 37 19 79 43 0 3,620 2016 90 279 19 1,907 58 222 971 38 20 81 47 0 3,732 2017 92 289 20 1,983 61 245 1,015 39 20 84 50 0 3,900 2018 95 299 21 1,972 65 272 999 40 21 87 53 0 3,924 2019 99 311 21 2,061 68 301 1,046 42 22 90 57 0 4,118 2020 102 319 21 2,034 72 333 1,020 43 23 93 61 0 4,122 2021 106 331 22 2,092 76 352 1,018 45 24 96 66 0 4,228 2022 110 343 23 2,176 80 374 991 46 25 100 71 0 4,338 2023 112 350 23 2,175 84 391 1,029 47 26 103 76 0 4,416 2024 117 364 24 2,304 88 416 960 49 27 107 82 0 4,539 2025 122 379 25 2,361 94 442 1,005 51 29 111 89 0 4,708 2026 126 392 26 2,424 99 469 942 53 30 116 96 0 4,772 2027 131 407 27 2,561 106 499 985 56 32 121 104 0 5,027 2028 138 429 28 2,647 114 535 1,003 58 34 127 113 0 5,226
Table 13-2 Base Case Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 113 0 10 8 0 2 0 0 0 151 2012 5 14 2 428 0 10 272 2 0 0 0 0 732 2013 5 7 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 132 2015 0 0 0 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 517 2016 0 0 0 0 5 10 220 0 0 10 0 0 244 2017 0 0 0 23 0 10 0 0 2 0 5 0 39 2018 0 0 0 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 517 2019 0 0 0 0 5 19 0 0 0 0 5 0 28 2020 5 7 2 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 531 2021 0 0 0 0 0 10 220 0 2 10 5 0 246 2022 0 7 0 23 5 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 266 2023 5 7 0 285 0 19 0 0 0 0 5 0 320 2024 0 7 0 0 5 10 440 0 2 0 0 0 464 2025 0 0 0 285 0 19 0 2 0 10 5 0 321 2026 5 10 2 285 5 10 440 0 0 0 5 0 760 2027 0 10 0 0 0 19 0 2 2 0 5 0 38 2028 0 0 0 285 5 19 220 0 0 0 0 0 529 Salvage Value 13 45 4 2,040 21 139 2,160 9 7 19 23 0 4,480
13-5
13.2
FUEL SCENARIO
The individual country subsections below summarize the main resource additions for each of them for the Fuel Scenario. 13.2.1 Antigua and Barbuda For all four Scenarios, assumed committed system additions are six 5 MW Casada Gardens units during 2011-2013. Those unit additions would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system will require additional generation units. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. 13.2.2 Barbados 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 will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the gas pipeline. 13.2.3 Dominica Dominica does not have a potentially less expensive fossil fuel option, only a renewable option which will be analyzed in another Scenario. The same results as in the Base Case Scenario apply for Dominica in the Fuel Scenario. 13.2.4 Dominican Republic During the first years, as in the Base Case Scenario, we assumed buildup of the already committed hydro and wind resources. Starting in 2012 Dominican Republic will require additional generating 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. Results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW coal units) and 100 MW of GT units. 13.2.5 Grenada For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need an additional 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. 13.2.6 Haiti For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that in this scenario all new units will be using natural gas as a fuel. The assumption is that natural gas will be supplied starting in 2014 from a new LNG terminal.
13-6
13.2.7 Jamaica Until 2014 we assumed the same buildup of already planned resources as in the Base Case Scenario. 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. 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. 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. 13.2.8 St. Kitts and Nevis St. Kitts and Nevis does not have an alternative, potentially less expensive, fossil fuel option, only a renewable option which will be analyzed in another scenario. The same results as in the Base Case Scenario apply for St. Kitts and Nevis in the Fuel Scenario and are not duplicated here. 13.2.9 St. Lucia 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 will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the gas pipeline. 13.2.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines St. Vincent and Grenadines will again require new capacity addition starting in 2017. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. 13.2.11 Total System Costs Tables 13-3 and 13-4 present total system production and investment cost for the Fuel Scenario. The Fuel Scenario assumes no transmission interconnection among islands and thus shows no fuel savings associated for energy exports or interconnection costs. The Investment Cost Summary table also includes the salvage value for all investments at the end of the planning period. The Fuel Scenario assumes no interconnection among islands and thus shows no fuel savings associated for energy exports or interconnection costs.
13-7
Table 13-3 Fuel Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,588 39 111 888 27 12 58 28 0 3,020 2012 74 223 15 1,587 45 133 912 30 15 65 32 0 3,132 2013 76 234 16 1,683 35 151 983 32 16 69 35 0 3,332 2014 81 102 17 1,791 51 140 845 34 17 39 39 0 3,159 2015 86 106 19 1,717 54 151 868 37 19 40 43 0 3,139 2016 90 110 19 1,794 54 174 877 38 20 42 47 0 3,264 2017 92 114 20 1,867 56 188 911 39 20 43 48 0 3,398 2018 95 119 21 1,803 59 203 923 40 21 44 51 0 3,379 2019 99 124 21 1,875 58 219 964 42 22 46 52 0 3,521 2020 98 124 21 1,807 60 234 969 43 23 46 55 0 3,481 2021 101 124 22 1,876 62 240 980 45 24 47 56 0 3,578 2022 104 128 23 1,956 63 248 964 46 25 48 60 0 3,666 2023 102 131 23 1,923 65 255 1,000 47 26 50 61 0 3,684 2024 106 138 24 2,008 65 269 973 49 27 52 65 0 3,776 2025 109 146 25 1,990 67 281 1,029 51 29 55 66 0 3,849 2026 111 152 26 1,983 68 296 998 53 30 57 69 0 3,843 2027 115 159 27 2,064 70 311 1,057 56 32 60 71 0 4,019 2028 119 166 28 2,065 78 326 1,109 58 34 62 79 0 4,125
Table 13-4 Fuel Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 113 0 10 8 0 2 0 0 0 151 2012 5 14 2 753 0 10 272 2 0 0 0 0 1,057 2013 5 7 0 0 26 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 132 2015 0 0 0 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 727 2016 0 0 0 0 26 10 105 0 0 10 0 0 150 2017 0 0 0 23 0 10 0 0 2 0 26 0 60 2018 0 0 0 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 727 2019 0 0 0 0 26 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 70 2020 26 7 2 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 762 2021 0 0 0 0 0 10 105 0 2 10 26 0 152 2022 0 7 0 23 26 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 172 2023 26 7 0 600 0 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 677 2024 0 7 0 0 26 10 210 0 2 0 0 0 255 2025 0 0 0 600 0 19 0 2 0 10 26 0 657 2026 26 10 2 600 26 10 210 0 0 0 26 0 908 2027 0 10 0 0 0 19 0 2 2 0 26 0 59 2028 0 0 0 600 26 19 105 0 0 0 0 0 750 Salvage Value 66 45 4 3,986 138 139 1,156 9 7 19 146 0 5,715
13-8
13.3
INTERCONNECTION/RENEWABLE SCENARIO
The individual country subsections below summarize the main resource additions for each of them for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. 13.3.1 Antigua and Barbuda Most assumed new generation units are the same as in the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that this Scenario includes the addition of 14 MW of new wind units. 13.3.2 Barbados 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. 13.3.3 Dominica The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of a 20 MW geothermal unit in 2012 to satisfy local needs, and the addition of two 92.5 MW units in 2014 for exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe. The energy balance table shows corresponding exports of 1,296 GWh starting in 2014. 13.3.4 Dominican Republic Preliminary analysis had indicated that the impacts of interconnection with Haiti and renewable energy generation should be studied separately. We determined that interconnection with Haiti is not economic, but adding renewable energy is economic. Therefore results for the Dominican Republic assume no interconnection, but do assume the addition of renewable energy resources. 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). 13.3.5 Grenada 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. 13.3.6 Haiti Preliminary analysis had indicated that the impacts of interconnection with the Dominican Republic and renewable energy generation should be studied separately. We determined that interconnection with the Dominican Republic is not economic, but adding renewable energy is economic. Therefore results for Haiti assume no interconnection, but do assume the addition of renewable energy resources. Most assumed generation is the same as in the Base Case Scenario, but the Renewable Scenario includes the addition of 81 MW of new wind generation.
13-9
13.3.7 Jamaica For this Scenario, most assumed system unit additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition of 219 MW of wind generation by 2028, with the yearly schedule presented in Table 13-86. 13.3.8 St. Kitts and Nevis This 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 at Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. A submarine cable connecting Nevis and Puerto Rico is also assumed to be completed by 2014. 13.3.9 St. Lucia For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is the assumed addition of 18 MW by 2028 of wind generation. 13.3.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most 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 with the yearly schedule presented in Table 13-98. 13.3.11 Total System Costs Tables 13-5 to 13-7 present total system production, investment and interconnection cost for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Production Cost Summary table shows fuel savings associated for energy exports to Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Puerto Rico. The Investment Cost Summary and Interconnection Cost Summary tables show yearly costs associated with building assumed interconnections. Renewable Scenario production and investment cost results are those presented for the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and no interconnection is assumed. The interconnection costs shown for the Dominican Republic Haiti interconnection are those used in the preliminary analysis that determined that an interconnection was not economic.
Table 13-5 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,578 39 109 880 17 3 58 27 0 2,980 2012 72 223 3 1,616 43 129 900 19 5 65 32 0 3,107 2013 73 234 4 1,697 45 145 963 21 5 68 34 0 3,290 2014 77 251 25 1,790 49 166 963 22 41 72 38 -725 2,770 2015 82 265 26 1,776 53 188 959 24 42 76 41 -748 2,784 2016 85 274 26 1,845 55 209 939 25 42 78 44 -755 2,869 2017 88 282 27 1,820 58 230 979 26 43 80 47 -758 2,923 2018 91 291 28 1,893 61 254 960 2 46 83 50 -757 3,002 2019 94 301 28 1,894 64 282 1,002 4 47 85 54 -763 3,091 2020 97 307 29 1,941 67 312 975 5 48 87 58 -761 3,164 2021 100 318 30 1,921 71 329 971 6 49 90 62 -768 3,177 2022 104 327 31 1,993 75 347 944 7 50 93 67 -775 3,262 2023 106 333 31 2,059 78 363 978 8 50 96 71 -774 3,402 2024 111 345 32 2,113 83 385 912 10 52 100 77 -782 3,438 2025 115 359 33 2,227 89 409 953 11 53 104 83 -790 3,645 2026 120 370 34 2,283 93 433 893 13 54 107 90 -797 3,693 2027 124 383 35 2,356 100 460 933 15 55 112 97 -809 3,861 2028 131 402 36 2,485 107 494 950 16 57 118 106 -824 4,078
Table 13-6 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 150 0 15 26 0 56 0 2 18 287 2012 8 14 56 465 4 15 287 0 0 2 0 2 853 2013 8 7 0 38 6 15 15 0 0 2 2 2 95 2014 4 4 643 38 0 6 147 0 1,042 2 0 1,105 2,989 2015 0 4 0 323 2 15 235 0 0 2 2 28 610 2016 0 4 0 38 5 15 235 0 0 11 0 28 336 2017 0 4 0 345 0 15 15 0 0 2 6 28 415 2018 0 4 0 38 2 15 235 0 56 0 0 28 378 2019 2 4 0 323 5 25 15 0 0 2 6 28 409 2020 5 11 0 38 2 15 235 0 0 2 0 28 335 2021 0 4 0 323 0 15 235 0 2 10 6 28 623 2022 0 11 0 60 5 15 235 0 0 2 0 28 356 2023 6 11 0 38 2 25 15 0 0 0 6 28 131 2024 0 11 0 323 5 15 455 0 2 2 0 28 840 2025 0 4 0 38 0 25 15 0 0 10 6 28 125 2026 5 13 0 323 6 15 455 0 0 2 5 28 851 2027 2 13 0 323 0 25 15 2 2 0 6 28 417 2028 0 4 0 38 5 25 235 0 0 2 0 28 336 Salvage Value 23 88 369 2,467 30 211 2,356 2 623 35 35 559 6,797
13-11
Table 13-7 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Dominica - Martinique & Dominica - Guadeloupe Dominican Republic - Haiti Nevis - Puerto Rico Nevis - St. Kitts Total 0 0 18 18 2 2 2 2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Salvage Value
119 250 734 2 1,105
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
59 125 367 7 559
13-12
13.4
INTEGRATED SCENARIO
The individual country subsections below summarize the main resource additions for each of them for the Integrated Scenario. 13.4.1 Antigua and Barbuda 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 results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.2 Barbados 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 results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.3 Dominica This Scenario assumes the same geothermal additions as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The key difference from the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario is the assumed fuel saving of energy exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe. The Integrated Scenario assumes construction of a natural gas pipeline serving those two countries, so fuel savings on Martinique and Guadeloupe are reduced because they are replacing lower cost natural gas (rather than distillate) based generation. 13.4.4 Dominican Republic 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 does not assume interconnection with Haitis system. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.5 Grenada Assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.6 Haiti Assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Interconnection with the Dominican Republic is assumed not to occur. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options.
13.4.7 Jamaica Assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.8 St. Kitts and Nevis This Scenario assumes the same interconnection with Nevis by 2011 and no new generation units built on St. Kitts, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The results are the same as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Again this scenario assumes that Nevis will be interconnected with St. Kitts by 2011 and the two 20 MW geothermal units at Nevis will supply St. Kitts and Nevis. Additionally, two 200 MW geothermal units will be built at Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. The results are the same as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. 13.4.9 St. Lucia Assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Assumed system additions are the same as in the Fuel Scenario with the addition of new wind units as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. 13.4.11 Total System Costs Tables 13-8 to 13-10 present total system production, investment and interconnection cost for the Integrated Scenario. Production Cost Summary table shows fuel savings associated for energy exports to Martinique, Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico. Investment Cost Summary and Interconnection Cost Summary tables include yearly costs associated with building assumed interconnections.
Table 13-8 Integrated Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,578 39 109 880 17 3 58 27 0 2,980 2012 72 223 3 1,567 43 129 900 19 5 65 32 0 3,058 2013 73 234 4 1,653 34 145 963 21 5 68 34 0 3,234 2014 77 102 25 1,749 49 133 825 22 41 38 38 -611 2,488 2015 82 105 26 1,669 51 143 843 24 42 39 41 -627 2,437 2016 85 108 26 1,736 51 164 849 25 42 40 44 -632 2,541 2017 88 112 27 1,670 53 177 878 26 43 41 45 -635 2,525 2018 91 116 28 1,732 55 191 888 2 46 42 48 -634 2,605 2019 94 120 28 1,680 55 205 924 4 47 44 49 -638 2,610 2020 93 120 29 1,726 56 220 926 5 48 44 52 -634 2,685 2021 96 120 30 1,787 59 224 935 6 49 45 53 -637 2,766 2022 99 123 31 1,769 59 232 918 7 50 46 56 -642 2,747 2023 97 125 31 1,824 61 238 951 8 50 47 57 -641 2,849 2024 100 132 32 1,811 61 250 924 10 52 49 61 -649 2,834 2025 103 139 33 1,881 64 262 976 11 53 52 62 -656 2,980 2026 106 145 34 1,873 64 275 946 13 54 54 64 -663 2,965 2027 109 150 35 1,945 66 288 1,001 15 55 56 66 -673 3,114 2028 113 157 36 1,945 74 303 1,050 16 57 58 74 -684 3,200
Table 13-9 Integrated Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 150 0 15 26 0 56 0 2 18 287 2012 8 14 56 790 4 15 287 0 0 2 0 2 1,178 2013 8 7 0 38 27 15 15 0 0 2 2 2 116 2014 4 4 643 38 0 6 147 0 1,042 2 0 1,105 2,989 2015 0 4 0 648 2 15 120 0 0 2 2 28 820 2016 0 4 0 38 26 15 120 0 0 11 0 28 242 2017 0 4 0 670 0 15 15 0 0 2 27 28 761 2018 0 4 0 38 2 15 120 0 56 0 0 28 263 2019 2 4 0 648 26 25 15 0 0 2 27 28 776 2020 26 11 0 38 2 15 120 0 0 2 0 28 241 2021 0 4 0 38 0 15 120 0 2 10 27 28 244 2022 0 11 0 660 26 15 120 0 0 2 0 28 862 2023 27 11 0 38 2 25 15 0 0 0 27 28 173 2024 0 11 0 638 26 15 225 0 2 2 0 28 946 2025 0 4 0 38 0 25 15 0 0 10 27 28 146 2026 26 13 0 638 27 15 225 0 0 2 26 28 999 2027 2 13 0 38 0 25 15 2 2 0 27 28 153 2028 0 4 0 638 26 25 120 0 0 2 0 28 842 Salvage Value 77 88 369 4,389 147 211 1,351 2 623 35 158 559 8,009
13-15
Table 13-10 Integrated Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Dominica - Martinique & Dominica - Guadeloupe Nevis - Puerto Rico Nevis - St. Kitts Total 0 0 18 18 2 2 2 2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Salvage Value
119 734 2 854
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
59 367 7 434
13-16
Section 14
14.1 COMPARISON OF SCENARIO RESULTS
Study Results Evaluation
This section presents summary cost comparisons of all the scenario results presented in Section 13 and an evaluation of the results. Table 14-1 includes summary Net Present Values (NPVs) of all capital, fuel, and other operating costs for each system and for all scenarios over the entire planning period. The Table also includes the NPV of fuel savings from energy exports to countries not listed (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Puerto Rico), and of interconnection costs. The Total row shows the combined scenario NVP of all costs and savings. Table 14-1 Scenario NPV Cost Comparison (Million US$)
Base Case Scenario Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (from exports) Interconnection Costs Total 31,985 29,424 708 2,266 157 16,357 489 1,955 8,488 308 188 670 400 Fuel Scenario 696 1,360 157 15,913 458 1,522 7,988 308 188 454 382 Interconnection/ Renewable Scenario 688 2,227 521 16,006 473 1,878 8,350 149 807 651 387 -3,606 884 29,415 Integrated Scenario 677 1,354 521 15,636 445 1,479 7,860 149 807 448 372 -3,011 884 27,619
The results show similarly reduced NPV costs associated with the Fuel and Interconnection/Renewable Scenarios, with the lowest cost for the Interconnected Scenario. In the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario the cost of generation for supplying other regions is included in the total cost for each system. Having these additional costs, Dominica and Nevis total costs significantly increase in the Interconnection/Renewable and Integrated Scenarios. However, the benefits of the interconnections are captured in the Fuel Savings, or in the case of the Nevis-St. Kitts interconnection, in the reduced costs in St. Kitts.
14-1
Table 14-2 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$)
Table 14-2 presents cost differences among Scenarios by system as well as differences in Scenario total costs. 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 14-2 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. By country results show: Antigua and Barbuda The Fuel Scenario savings show that, from a cost perspective, it is beneficial to introduce imported coal as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from the introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows the combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close to the sum of the savings of other two Scenarios. This result means that the two scenario options are almost independent (i.e., wind development will not negatively affect the coal option and vice-versa), and that the power system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. Barbados The Fuel Scenario shows large savings resulting from form the introduction of the natural gas fuel option. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario results show that savings from wind generation are highly dependent on the assumed fuel supply option. This result means that if most units in Barbados are using less expensive natural gas, the savings from wind development will be greatly reduced (i.e., wind generation will be replacing lower cost natural gas generation) and could provide cost savings for only a few of the best wind sites. Dominica Dominica does not have an alternative fossil fuel option. The results however show large benefits of geothermal development in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The
14-2
Integrated Scenario results show that savings are highly dependent on the assumed fuel supply option for Martinique and Guadeloupe. This result means that if most units in Martinique and Guadeloupe have available less expensive natural gas, the savings from geothermal development will be greatly reduced (i.e., geothermal generation will be replacing lower cost natural gas generation). More detailed analysis of the Martinique and Guadeloupe systems would be required to show if both geothermal and natural gas pipeline options should be developed simultaneously (i.e., dependent on costs and the number of units that could be converted to natural gas). Dominican Republic The Fuel Scenario savings show that, from a cost perspective, it is beneficial to introduce imported coal as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show savings of about 90% of the sum of the other two Scenarios. This result means that those Scenario options are almost independent (i.e., wind development will not negatively affect coal option and viceversa), and that the power system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. Grenada The Fuel Scenario savings show that, from a cost perspective, it is beneficial to introduce imported coal as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close the sum of the other two scenarios. This result means that those scenario options are almost independent (i.e., wind development will not negatively affect coal option and vice-versa), and that the power system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. Haiti The Fuel Scenario savings show that, from a cost perspective, it is beneficial to introduce LNG as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from the introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario savings results are close to the sum of the other two Scenarios. This means that those Scenario options are independent enough that wind development will not negatively affect the LNG option and vice-versa, and that the power system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. Not included in Table 14-2 are the results of separate analysis of benefits of the Haiti-Dominican Republic transmission interconnection. Results with an assumed interconnection and exports from Dominican Republic to Haiti show, on a NPV basis, increased system cost in Dominican Republic by US$322 million and decreased system cost in Haiti of US$556 million. The total savings are thus US$235 million. This number accounts for additional transmission losses for the interconnection. This was compared with the NPV costs of building and operating 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. Jamaica The Fuel Scenario savings show that it is beneficial to introduce LNG as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows combined savings of including the LNG and wind options. The
14-3
Integrated Scenario results show savings close the sum of saving for the other two Scenarios. This result means that those Scenario options are almost independent (i.e., wind development will not negatively affect the LNG option and vice-versa), and that the system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. St. Kitts and Nevis St. Kitts and Nevis do not have alternative fossil fuel option. St. Kitts results however show large benefits resulting from interconnection and geothermal development on Nevis (NPV of US$159 million). These saving are much higher than the increased costs on Nevis associated with serving St. Kitts load (NPV of around US$100 million). So 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 on Nevis are the result of additional geothermal development, interconnection, and exports of energy to Puerto Rico. St. Lucia The Fuel Scenario shows large savings resulting from the introduction of natural gas as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from introduction of wind generation. Similar to the Barbados results, the Integrated Scenario results show that savings from wind generation are highly dependent on the assumed fuel supply option. This result means that if most units on St. Lucia are using less expensive natural gas, the savings from wind development will be greatly reduced (i.e., wind generation will be replacing lower cost natural gas generation). Consequently, only a few of the best wind sites might provide cost savings in this scenario. St. Vincent and Grenadines The Fuel Scenario savings show that, from a cost perspective, it is beneficial to introduce imported coal as a fuel. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario shows savings from the introduction of wind generation. The Integrated Scenario shows combined savings of including the coal and wind options. The Integrated Scenario results show savings close the sum of the other two Scenarios. This result means that those Scenario options are almost independent (i.e., wind development will not negatively affect coal option and viceversa), and that the system would benefit the most if future development includes both options. In summary, system analysis results confirm and expand upon the initial screening analysis results. 14.2 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Based on the more detailed system analysis, 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 highly dependent on the construction of the natural gas pipeline connecting those two islands with Trinidad and Tobago.
14-4
14.2.1 Investment Requirement and Financing Evaluation Table 14-3 provides for each Scenario the undiscounted investment requirements for each country and for the Study countries combined, including the cost of interconnections attributed to the exporting country. The investment requirements are lowest for the Base Case Scenario, increasing by about US$1.7 billion for the Fuel Scenario, US$3.8 billion for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, and US$5.5 billion for the Integrated Scenario. Note that the undiscounted 2009 US$ costs in Tables 14-3 and 14-4 are not directly comparable to the NPV values of Tables 14-1 and 14-2 and in the Tables in Section 13. Table 14-3 Investment Requirement, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario
Base Case Scenario Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Total 27 84 7 2,965 32 259 2,928 16 11 38 32 6,398 Fuel Scenario 90 84 7 5,525 179 259 1,663 16 11 38 179 8,050 Interconnection/ Renewable Scenario 44 140 818 3,640 47 360 3,202 2 1,913 61 48 10,274 Integrated Scenario 107 140 818 6,200 194 360 1,937 2 1,913 61 195 11,926
The Fuel, Interconnection/Renewable, and Integrated Scenarios have larger investment requirements because they use capital investment to reduce production costs, overwhelmingly fuel costs. Table 14-4 shows the undiscounted production costs for the four Scenarios. The apparent savings ranges from US$3.7 billion for the Renewable Scenario to US$13.5 billion for Integrated Scenario. In fact those values significantly understate the savings. The production cost savings shown in Table 14-4 cover one to 15 years, depending on when the investment was made. They will continue for an additional 15 to 29 years. Table 14-2 illustrates the NPV cost advantage of the other three scenarios over the Base Case. Financing an additional US$1.7 billion to US$5.5 billion would be a challenge, not least because funds for capital investment tend to be harder to acquire than funds for day-to-day operations. There are reasons to think that it might be possible to meet the challenge. The capital investments will reduce overall cash flows in the long run. In the Interconnection/Renewable and Integrated Scenarios, about 25% of the investment and 50% of the increased investment compared to the Base Case is in the development of geothermal power plants for export and for submarine cable
14-5
interconnections. It is currently envisioned that these investments will be made by private parties, not the utilities. Much of the investment increase is in coal-fueled power plants. Some of those are only marginally beneficial compared to LNG. Foregoing some production cost savings to reduce financing requirements might be favored by some utilities.
Other factors add to the challenge: More than half the investment requirement in the Fuel and Integrated Scenarios is in the Dominican Republic. If that one country is unable to meet its investment needs much of the benefit will not be achieved. Capital investments associated with new fuels were rolled into the prices of the fuels. Those investments associated with at-island facilities may become the responsibility of the utility.
Overhanging all decision-making regarding future power sector investments is the issue of fuel price forecasts. Will a utility be willing to make significant capital investments to move away from distillate when prices may fall? Will a utility gamble on HFO as an temporizing move with much lower capital investment requirements? On the other hand, continuing with liquid fuels risks the return to $150/BBL oil. There is no way to avoid risk altogether, and controlling risk through diversification or some kind of hedging imposes costs as well. The point is that financing a substantial investment to reduce fuel costs is a risk a utility should balance against the risks of not making the investment, based on its situation and perceptions. Table 14-4 Production Cost Summary, 2009 US$ Million, by Scenario
Base Case Scenario Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Total 1,906 6,022 410 39,919 1,370 5,796 19,078 816 433 1,765 1,189 78,704 Fuel Scenario 1,809 2,951 410 35,983 1,118 4,105 18,587 816 433 1,028 1,004 68,245 Interconnection/ Renewable Scenario 1,821 5,818 500 37,894 1,296 5,421 18,392 300 761 1,676 1,123 75,001 Integrated Scenario 1,729 2,882 500 34,203 1,061 3,865 17,915 300 761 988 952 65,155
14-6
14.2.2 Commercial and Regulatory Issues Some issues affect only the country where the power is generated and can be dealt with on a country-by-country basis. This includes environmental regulation related to fuels, especially coal, petroleum coke, and HFO. It also includes economic regulation of tariffs and related issues for power produced for the domestic market. This is an important commercial issue as well. Each countrys regulators should address the needs of customers and investors and strike a balance that leaves the utility sound technically and financially. Another class of regulatory issue is those affecting more than one country. This includes power for export, submarine cables, and the ECGP. It may also affect imported fuels, especially if local costs are part of the price of the fuel. Where one than one country is affected, regulatory harmonization is desirable and may be mandatory for the success of the project in question. Having many countries are involved, such as with the ECGP, adds to the complexity and likely time required to reach a successful conclusion. Another complication is the potential for separate components of inter-island power or fuel supply. For the export of geothermal power via submarine cable, one private party might own the geothermal power plant in the exporting country while another owns and operates the submarine cable. For the gas pipeline, a separate firm will own and operate the pipeline while another organization will supply the gas. In both these cases contractual structures must be created to guarantee the supply needed by the customers and that allocate risks and responsibilities to the appropriate parties. The needs of all parties would be best served by longterm contracts that guarantee supply to the customer and guarantee a revenue stream to the suppliers. 14.2.3 Security of Supply More than one utility has expressed concern about relying on another country for power or fuel vital to power generation. A simple technical failure to a pipeline or submarine cable, though unlikely, might be the cause. In addition, supply to one country might be compromised by political unrest in the supplying country, or by retaining contracted fuel or power for the supplying country in the event of shortage. In contrast, distillate and HFO are widely available. The combination of power plant and submarine cable, or gas supply and gas pipeline, will involve large capital expenses and result in relying on a single or small number of customers for the revenues to cover the investments and other costs. It is essential that the electricity or gas importers be highly credit worthy organizations. 14.2.3.1 On-island Reserve Requirements
All of the Study countries have no interconnections and most have small demands. This leads most to maintain high planning reserve margins to assure reliable service. Reserve margins may be set on a deterministic basis, such as 35%, or a probabilistic basis, such as loss-of-load probability. It would be possible to incorporate power via a submarine cable into such approaches.
14-7
A problem is that the economics of submarine cables (and some power generation technologies) improve as more power is delivered. This provides an incentive for the supplier to deliver as much power as possible. This can be good for the importer, but may lead to the geothermal plant / submarine cable project delivering significantly more power than any other unit in the importing countrys system. One way to address this situation is to draw a parallel to the way the necessary reserve margin is established today. For example, suppose the reserve margin requirement is explicitly or implicitly 20% of peak demand plus the size of the two largest units. If the largest unit before the submarine cable is 16 MW, and the submarine cable is 50 MW, the new reserve margin requirement can easily be calculated. A more detailed economic analysis than is included in this Study could incorporate the costs of the increased reserve margin using this approach or in another similar approach. Operating reserves would also need to change. Operating reserves might be on a largest contingency basis. In the case where the largest unit previously was 16 MW but becomes 50 MW, the costs associated with that change could also be incorporated. Both geothermal power generation and submarine cables tend to be highly reliable facilities, which could affect the level of operating reserves carried and the corresponding risk and expected costs of an outage of the cable or generator.
14-8
Section 15
15.1 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions and Recommendations
15.1.1 Demand Regional peak demand is forecast to grow at 3.6% per year from 2009 through 2028, with regional energy demand growing at 3.7% per year for the same period. Both peak and energy demand nearly double by 2028. The range among the countries is 2.5% per year to 7.9% per year. Meeting the growth in demand will pose fuel supply and financial challenges. 15.1.2 Fuels The forecast levelized price of distillate over 2014-2028 is US$22.45/GJ. Each country except Dominica has at least one lower cost fuel option, and many countries have more than one. Table 15-1 replicates Table 7-11 and provides the comparative prices. Distillate, LNG, and pipeline gas can be compared directly because they can fuel the same generators. Coal fuels generators with higher capital costs and higher heat rates, which must be taken into account in comparing fuel options. The prices of all fuels except distillate vary from country to country because they include transportation costs that vary. Table 15-1 Fuel Prices Based on Yearly Demand 2014-2028 Fuels Selected in Addition to Coal and Distillate None Pipeline Gas Distillate only LNG None Pipeline Gas LNG LNG LNG Pipeline Gas None Pipeline Gas None Levelized Fuel Price, US$/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
15-1
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 15-1 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
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. 15.1.3 Technologies 15.1.3.1 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. 15.1.3.2 Fossil Fueled
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 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 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. 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.
15-3
15.1.4 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. 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. 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
15.1.5 Multiple New Supply Sources Some countries are blessed with several attractive options. For example, based on the prices calculated for Martinique and Guadeloupe, pipeline gas, LNG, CNG, coal, and geothermal power via submarine cable from Dominica are all much less costly than distillate-based power generation. For Martinique, the geothermal power / submarine cable project appears to offer some economic benefits even though pipeline gas is available. Considering the fixed investment costs of each and their interaction in reducing the imports of each other, proceeding with more than one expensive new source of fuel or power may be difficult. The same principle applies for all the cases where more than one option appears economic.
15-4
15.1.6 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. 15.1.7 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 15-2 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$2.5 million compared to the Base Case. The Integrated Scenario reduces
15-5
costs by about US$ 4.3 million, showing that the Integrated Scenario captures most of the individual benefits of each of the other two Scenarios. Table 15-1 Scenario NPV Cost Differences - Base Case Minus Other Scenario Costs (Million US$)
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. 15.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In Section 14.2, based on the more detailed system analysis, 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 geothermalbased 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
15-6
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 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.
15-7
Attachment A
Scenario Analysis Results
This section provides additional details of the results of system analysis for the four scenarios described in Section 12 and summarized in Section 13 of the main report. It adds results for the individual countries as well as including the same summary tables as Section 13. Because of the number of tables, we include on the following pages a Table of Contents and list of Tables to help the reader find the items he or she is seeking.
A-1
Section
Page
Attachment A Scenario Analysis Results................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Base Case Scenario Development Plans A-6 A.2 Fuel Scenario A-37 A.3 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario A-60 A.4 Integrated Scenario A-98 Table Page
Table A-1 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Capacity Balance ................................................ A-10 Table A-2 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Energy Balance ................................................... A-11 Table A-3 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... A-11 Table A-4 Barbados Base Case Capacity Balance ................................................................... A-12 Table A-5 Barbados Base Case Energy Balance ...................................................................... A-13 Table A-6 Barbados Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ....................................... A-13 Table A-7 Dominica Base Case Capacity Balance ................................................................... A-14 Table A-8 Dominica Base Case Energy Balance ..................................................................... A-15 Table A-9 Dominica Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ...................................... A-15 Table A-10 Dominican Republic Base Case Capacity Balance ............................................... A-16 Table A-11 Dominican Republic Base Case Energy Balance .................................................. A-18 Table A-12 Dominican Republic Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................... A-20 Table A-13 Grenada Base Case Capacity Balance ................................................................... A-21 Table A-14 Grenada Base Case Energy Balance ...................................................................... A-22 Table A-15 Grenada Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ...................................... A-22 Table A-16 Haiti Base Case Capacity Balance......................................................................... A-23 Table A-17 Haiti Base Case Energy Balance ........................................................................... A-24 Table A-18 Haiti Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................................ A-24 Table A-19 Jamaica Base Case Capacity Balance .................................................................... A-25 Table A-20 Jamaica Base Case Energy Balance ...................................................................... A-26 Table A-21 Jamaica Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ....................................... A-27 Table A-22 St. Kitts Base Case Capacity Balance ................................................................... A-28 Table A-23 St. Kitts Base Case Energy Balance ...................................................................... A-29 Table A-24 St. Kitts Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ....................................... A-29 Table A-25 Nevis Base Case Capacity Balance ....................................................................... A-30 Table A-26 Nevis Base Case Energy Balance .......................................................................... A-31 Table A-27 Nevis Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........................................... A-31 Table A-28 St. Lucia Base Case Capacity Balance .................................................................. A-32 Table A-29 St. Lucia Base Case Energy Balance ..................................................................... A-33 Table A-30 St. Lucia Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)...................................... A-33 Table A-31 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Capacity Balance..................................... A-34 Table A-32 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Energy Balance ....................................... A-35 Table A-33 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........ A-35 Table A-34 Base Case Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................. A-36 Table A-35 Base Case Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................. A-36 Table A-36 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance ......................................... A-39
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report A-2
Table A-37 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ........................................... A-40 Table A-38 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Cost Summary ............................................. A-40 Table A-39 Barbados Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance ............................................................ A-41 Table A-40 Barbados Fuel Scenario Energy Balance............................................................... A-42 Table A-41 Barbados Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................... A-42 Table A-42 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance .......................................... A-43 Table A-43 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ............................................ A-45 Table A-44 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............. A-47 Table A-45 Grenada Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance ............................................................. A-48 Table A-46 Grenada Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ................................................................ A-49 Table A-47 Grenada Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................................. A-49 Table A-48 Haiti Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance ................................................................... A-50 Table A-49 Haiti Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ...................................................................... A-51 Table A-50 Haiti Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ...................................... A-51 Table A-51 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance .............................................................. A-52 Table A-52 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ................................................................. A-53 Table A-53 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$).................................. A-54 Table A-54 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance............................................................. A-55 Table A-55 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Energy Balance ............................................................... A-56 Table A-56 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................................ A-56 Table A-57 St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance ............................... A-57 Table A-58 St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Scenario Energy Balance .................................. A-58 Table A-59 St. Vincent and Grenadines Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................. A-58 Table A-60 Fuel Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................. A-59 Table A-61 Fuel Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................. A-59 Table A-62 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance .... A-63 Table A-63 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance....... A-64 Table A-64 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary ........ A-64 Table A-65 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ....................... A-65 Table A-66 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance .......................... A-66 Table A-67 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........................................................................................................................................... A-66 Table A-68 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ...................... A-67 Table A-69 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ......................... A-68 Table A-70 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........................................................................................................................................... A-68 Table A-71 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Capacity Balance ........................ A-69 Table A-72 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Energy Balance .......................... A-71 Table A-73 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A73 Table A-74 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ............................... A-74 Table A-75 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Energy Balance .................................. A-76 Table A-76 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)... A-78 Table A-77 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance......................... A-79 Table A-78 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ........................... A-80
A-3
Table A-79 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A80 Table A-80 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Capacity Balance ................................................. A-81 Table A-81 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Energy Balance .................................................... A-82 Table A-82 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... A-82 Table A-83 Haiti Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ........................................................ A-83 Table A-84 Haiti Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ........................................................... A-84 Table A-85 Haiti Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ............................ A-84 Table A-86 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ......................... A-85 Table A-87 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ............................ A-86 Table A-88 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) . A87 Table A-89 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ......................... A-88 Table A-90 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ............................ A-89 Table A-91 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A89 Table A-92 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ............................. A-90 Table A-93 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance ............................... A-91 Table A-94 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A-91 Table A-95 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ........................ A-92 Table A-96 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance .......................... A-93 Table A-97 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A93 Table A-98 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance ........................................................................................................................................... A-94 Table A-99 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance . A95 Table A-100 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........................................................................................................... A-95 Table A-101 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................................................................................................................. A-96 Table A-102 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................................................................................................................. A-96 Table A-103 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................................................................................................................................. A-97 Table A-104 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ............................ A-100 Table A-105 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Energy Balance .............................. A-101 Table A-106 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Cost Summary ................................ A-101 Table A-107 Barbados Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ............................................... A-102 Table A-108 Barbados Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ................................................. A-103 Table A-109 Barbados Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................. A-103 Table A-110 Dominica Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance .............................................. A-104 Table A-111 Dominica Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ................................................. A-105 Table A-112 Dominica Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$).................. A-105 Table A-113 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ............................. A-106 Table A-114 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ............................... A-108
A-4
Table A-115 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) A-110 Table A-116 Grenada Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ................................................ A-111 Table A-117 Grenada Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ................................................... A-112 Table A-118 Grenada Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... A-112 Table A-119 Haiti Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ...................................................... A-113 Table A-120 Haiti Integrated Scenario Energy Balance......................................................... A-114 Table A-121 Haiti Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ......................... A-114 Table A-122 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ................................................. A-115 Table A-123 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Energy Balance .................................................... A-116 Table A-124 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... A-117 Table A-125 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ................................................. A-118 Table A-126 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ................................................... A-119 Table A-127 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) .................... A-119 Table A-128 Nevis Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance..................................................... A-120 Table A-129 Nevis Integrated Scenario Energy Balance ....................................................... A-121 Table A-130 Nevis Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........................ A-121 Table A-131 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance ............................................... A-122 Table A-132 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Energy Balance .................................................. A-123 Table A-133 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................... A-123 Table A-134 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance .................. A-124 Table A-135 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Energy Balance..................... A-125 Table A-136 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ......................................................................................................................................... A-125 Table A-137 Integrated Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ................ A-126 Table A-138 Integrated Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)................ A-126 Table A-139 Integrated Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$) ........ A-127
A-5
A.1
BASE CASE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Tables A-1 to A-33 present system analysis results for the Base Case Scenario by country. For each country (or island) results are presented in three tables: capacity balance, energy balance, and cost summary tables. The capacity balance table for each country includes: Peak Load in MW based on the country load forecast by year Exports(+)/Imports(-) in MW Net Capacity in MW for all existing units (capacity decreases if there is assumed unit retirement during the planning period) Total capacity in MW for existing units Required Capacity in MW calculated as peak demand increased by the reserve margin requirements (reserve margin requirement applies only to the local demand) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) in MW shows required unit additions (i.e., existing units minus required capacity) New Capacity in MW shows capacity for each unit assumed to be built during the planning period Total Capacity in MW shows capacity for all existing and new units System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions in MW shows the overall system capacity surplus (+) or deficit (-) after unit additions Reserve Margin in % shows the calculated percent of capacity above the peak load.
The energy balance table includes: Energy in GWh based on the country load forecast by year Exports(+)/Imports(-) in GWh Generation in GWh by unit Total Generation in GWh shows total generation for all existing and new units matching the required energy
The cost summary table includes: Fuel and O&M costs in million 2009 US$ by unit including fuel and variable and fixed O&M costs Production Costs in million 2009 US$ shows total system production costs (i.e., fuel and O&M costs) Investment Costs in million 2009 US$ shows total cost for building new generation units Total System Costs shows a sum of production and investment costs
A-6
Tables A-34 and A-35 present total system production and investment cost results. The Production Cost Summary table also includes fuel savings associated with energy exports outside the modeled region. The costs for supplying those exports are included in the production and investment costs of the exporting country. The Investment Cost Summary table also includes the salvage value for all investments at the end of the planning period. A.1.1 Antigua and Barbuda
Tables A-1 to A-3 present system analysis results for Antigua and Barbuda. For the Base Case, and other development cases, assumed committed system additions are six 5 MW Casada Gardens units during 2011-2013. Those unit additions would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system will require additional generation units. For the Base Case, 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. A.1.2 Barbados
Tables A-4 to A-6 present system analysis results for Barbados. For the Base Case, and other development cases, assumed committed system additions are nine 16 MW Trent units. 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. For the Base Case, 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. A.1.3 Dominica
Tables A-7 to A-9 present system analysis results for Dominica. Starting in 2012 Dominica will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case, new additions are assumed to be 5 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 15 MW (3 x 5 MW units) to meet the required capacity. A.1.4 Dominican Republic
Tables A-10 to A-12 present system analysis results for Dominica. During the first years, during 2009-2011, installation of the assumed already committed hydro and wind resources will cover the load growth. Starting in 2012 the Dominican Republic will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case, 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 CC units) and 100 MW of GT units.
A-7
A.1.5
Grenada
Tables A-13 to A-15 present system analysis results for Grenada. Grenada will require new capacity addition starting in 2013. For the Base Case, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. A.1.6 Haiti
Tables A-16 to A-18 present system analysis results for Haiti. Haitis power system is already short of generation resources in 2009. So we calculated that the already committed resources and 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. Starting in 2010 the system will need another 20 MW, or 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. A.1.7 Jamaica
Tables A-19 to A-21 present system analysis results for Jamaica. 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, new additions are assumed to be 100 MW conventional coal units using imported coal. 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. A.1.8 St. Kitts and Nevis
Tables A-22 to A-24 present system analysis results for St. Kitts. Starting in 2012 St. Kitts will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case, 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. Tables A-25 to A-27 present system analysis results for Nevis. Starting in 2011 Nevis will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case, 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. A.1.9 St. Lucia
Tables A-28 to A-30 present system analysis results for St. Lucia. Starting in 2010 St. Lucia will require new capacity additions. For the Base Case, new additions are assumed to be 20 MW low speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 80 MW (4 x 20 MW units) to meet the required capacity.
A-8
A.1.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Tables A-31 to A-33 present system analysis results for St. Vincent and Grenadines. St. Vincent and Grenadines will require new capacity additions starting in 2017. For the Base Case, new additions are assumed to be 10 MW medium speed diesel units using distillate oil. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. A.1.11 Total System Costs Tables A-34 to A-35 present total system production and investment costs for the Base Case. The Base Case assumes no interconnection among islands and thus shows no fuel savings associated for energy exports or interconnection costs.
A-9
Table A-1 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) APC (Pant) APC Blk Pine Baker APC Jt Vent Victor WIOC Aggreko Rental Barbuda Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 54 2010 57 2011 60 2012 63 2013 65 2014 67 2015 69 2016 71 2017 73 2018 75 2019 77 2020 80 2021 82 2022 85 2023 87 2024 90 2025 92 2026 95 2027 98 2028 101
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 73 17 0 0 0 0 90 17 66%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 77 13 0 0 0 0 90 13 58%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 81 9 10 0 0 0 100 19 67%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 85 5 20 0 0 0 110 25 75%
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 88 -10 30 0 0 0 107 20
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 90 -13 30 0 0 0 107 17
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 93 -16 30 0 0 0 107 14
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 96 -19 30 0 0 0 107 11
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 99 -21 30 0 0 0 107 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 102 -24 30 0 0 0 107 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 104 -27 30 0 0 0 107 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 108 -31 30 0 10 0 117 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 111 -34 30 0 10 0 117 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 114 -37 30 0 10 0 117 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 118 -40 30 0 20 0 127 10
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 121 -44 30 0 20 0 127 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 125 -47 30 0 20 0 127 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 128 -51 30 0 30 0 137 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 132 -55 30 0 30 0 137 5
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 136 -59 30 0 30 0 137 1
65% 60.5% 55.8% 51.2% 46.8% 42.6% 38.5% 46.9% 42.6% 38.5% 45.9% 41.8% 37.8% 44.4% 40.3% 36.3%
A-10
Table A-2 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Generation (GWh) APC (Pant) APC Blk Pine Baker APC Jt Vent Victor WIOC Aggreko Rental Barbuda Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 318 49 101 13 66 27 0 38 24 0 0 0 0 318 2010 315 48 100 13 65 27 0 37 24 0 0 0 0 315 2011 312 43 88 11 58 24 0 33 21 34 0 0 0 312 2012 410 50 104 13 68 28 0 39 25 80 0 0 0 410 2013 422 52 107 14 70 29 0 0 26 124 0 0 0 422 2014 434 53 110 14 72 30 0 0 27 128 0 0 0 434 2015 447 55 114 15 74 31 0 0 27 131 0 0 0 447 2016 461 57 117 15 77 32 0 0 28 135 0 0 0 461 2017 475 58 121 16 79 33 0 0 29 139 0 0 0 475 2018 489 60 124 16 81 34 0 0 30 144 0 0 0 489 2019 503 62 128 16 84 35 0 0 31 148 0 0 0 503 2020 519 58 120 15 78 33 0 0 29 139 0 47 0 519 2021 534 60 123 16 81 34 0 0 30 143 0 49 0 534 2022 550 61 127 16 83 35 0 0 31 147 0 50 0 550 2023 567 58 120 15 78 33 0 0 29 139 0 95 0 567 2024 583 60 123 16 81 34 0 0 30 143 0 98 0 583 2025 600 61 127 16 83 35 0 0 31 147 0 100 0 600 2026 618 58 121 16 79 33 0 0 29 139 0 143 0 618 2027 636 60 124 16 81 34 0 0 30 144 0 147 0 636 2028 654 62 128 16 84 35 0 0 31 148 0 152 0 654
Table A-3 Antigua and Barbuda Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year 2009 Fuel and O&M Costs APC (Pant) 7.8 APC Blk Pine 14.4 Baker 2.1 APC Jt Vent 9.3 Victor 4.2 WIOC 0.0 Aggreko Rental 6.8 Barbuda 3.9 Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0 48 2010 8.0 14.7 2.1 9.4 4.3 0.0 7.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0 49 2011 7.6 14.0 2.0 9.0 4.1 0.0 6.6 3.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 4.5 57 2012 9.7 17.9 2.6 11.5 5.2 0.0 8.5 4.8 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 74 4.5 78 2013 10.2 18.8 2.7 12.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 76 4.5 80 2014 11.0 20.2 2.9 13.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81 0 81 2015 11.6 21.4 3.1 13.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 86 0 86 2016 12.1 22.2 3.2 14.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90 0 90 2017 12.4 22.9 3.3 14.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 92 0 92 2018 12.8 23.6 3.4 15.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95 0 95 2019 13.3 24.5 3.5 15.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 99 0 99 2020 12.5 23.1 3.3 14.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 102 4.5 106 2021 13.0 23.9 3.5 15.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 27.3 0.0 9.1 0.0 106 0 106 2022 13.5 24.8 3.6 16.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 28.3 0.0 9.4 0.0 110 0 110 2023 12.7 23.4 3.4 15.1 6.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 26.7 0.0 17.8 0.0 112 4.5 117 2024 13.2 24.4 3.5 15.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 27.8 0.0 18.5 0.0 117 0 117 2025 13.8 25.3 3.7 16.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 28.9 0.0 19.2 0.0 122 0 122 2026 13.2 24.3 3.5 15.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 27.8 0.0 27.7 0.0 126 4.5 131 2027 13.8 25.4 3.7 16.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 29.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 131 0 131 2028 14.5 26.6 3.9 17.3 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.2 30.4 0.0 30.4 0.0 138 0 138
A-11
Table A-4 Barbados Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) Trent 20 MW LSD 0 Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 170 2010 176 2011 182 2012 188 2013 195 2014 201 2015 208 2016 216 2017 223 2018 231 2019 239 2020 247 2021 256 2022 265 2023 274 2024 284 2025 294 2026 304 2027 314 2028 325
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 221 18 0 0 0 0 238 18 40%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 228 10 0 0 0 0 238 10 36%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 236 2 32 0 0 0 270 34 49%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 245 -6 64 0 0 0 302 58 61%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 253 -15 80 0 0 0 318 65
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 262 -23 80 0 0 0 318 57
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 271 -33 80 0 0 0 318 47
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 280 -42 80 0 0 0 318 38
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 290 -52 80 0 0 0 318 28
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 300 -62 80 0 0 0 318 18
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 311 -72 80 0 0 0 318 8
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 322 -83 96 0 0 0 334 13
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 333 -94 96 0 0 0 334 2
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 344 -106 112 0 0 0 350 6
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 356 -118 128 0 0 0 366 10
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 369 -130 144 0 0 0 382 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 382 -143 144 0 0 0 382 1
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 395 -157 144 20 0 0 402 7
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 409 -170 144 40 0 0 422 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 423 -185 144 40 0 0 422 -1
64% 58.1% 52.8% 47.6% 42.6% 37.8% 33.2% 35.2% 30.6% 32.3% 33.6% 34.8% 30.2% 32.4% 34.3% 29.8%
A-12
Table A-5 Barbados Base Case Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,039 1,073 1,107 1,143 1,180 1,218 1,258 1,298 1,340 1,384 1,428 1,475 1,522 1,572 1,622 1,675 1,729 1,785 1,843 1,902 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Spring Garden 107 120 106 96 94 97 100 103 107 110 114 111 114 112 109 107 111 108 105 108 Spring Garden 57 63 56 51 49 51 53 54 56 58 60 58 60 59 58 57 59 57 55 57 Spring Garden 57 63 56 51 49 51 53 54 56 58 60 58 60 59 58 57 59 57 55 57 Spring Garden 280 314 278 252 245 253 261 270 279 288 297 289 299 292 286 281 290 282 275 283 Spring Garden 227 162 141 126 120 124 128 132 136 141 145 143 147 144 141 139 143 139 135 141 Sewall 312 349 308 278 270 279 287 297 306 316 326 318 328 320 314 309 318 309 301 310 Trent 0 0 161 290 353 364 375 388 400 413 426 498 514 586 657 725 749 726 707 730 20 MW LSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 209 215 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Generation (GWh) 1039 1073 1107 1143 1180 1218 1258 1298 1340 1384 1428 1475 1522 1572 1622 1675 1729 1785 1843 1902
Table A-6 Barbados Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Trent 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 16.4 8.7 8.7 40.1 26.3 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 0 163 2010 18.9 10.0 10.0 46.1 30.2 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 188 0 188 2011 18.0 9.5 9.5 43.8 28.7 68.7 23.6 0.0 0.0 202 14.4 216 2012 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 46.7 0.0 0.0 223 14.4 237 2013 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 58.4 0.0 0.0 234 7.2 242 2014 19.1 10.1 10.1 46.6 30.6 73.1 62.8 0.0 0.0 252 0 252 2015 20.3 10.7 10.7 49.6 32.5 77.9 66.8 0.0 0.0 268 0 268 2016 21.1 11.2 11.2 51.6 33.8 81.1 69.5 0.0 0.0 279 0 279 2017 21.8 11.5 11.5 53.3 35.0 83.9 71.8 0.0 0.0 289 0 289 2018 22.6 11.9 11.9 55.2 36.2 86.9 74.3 0.0 0.0 299 0 299 2019 23.5 12.4 12.4 57.3 37.6 90.4 77.2 0.0 0.0 311 0 311 2020 23.0 12.1 12.1 56.1 36.8 88.3 90.6 0.0 0.0 319 7.2 326 2021 23.9 12.6 12.6 58.2 38.2 91.8 94.1 0.0 0.0 331 0 331 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
23.6 23.0 22.9 23.9 23.5 23.2 24.4 12.4 12.2 12.1 12.6 12.4 12.2 12.9 12.4 12.2 12.1 12.6 12.4 12.2 12.9 57.5 56.2 56.0 58.4 57.2 56.5 59.6 37.7 36.9 36.7 38.3 37.6 37.1 39.1 90.6 88.6 88.2 92.0 90.2 89.1 94.0 108.4 121.1 135.6 141.5 138.7 137.1 144.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 39.1 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 343 350 364 379 392 407 429 7.2 350 7.2 357 7.2 371 0 379 9.6 401 9.6 416 0 429
A-13
Table A-7 Dominica Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 15 2010 15 2011 16 2012 16 2013 17 2014 17 2015 18 2016 18 2017 19 2018 19 2019 20 2020 20 2021 21 2022 21 2023 22 2024 22 2025 23 2026 24 2027 24 2028 25
5 16 21 20 1 0 0 0 0 21 1 40%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 36%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 32%
5 16 21 22 -1 5 0 0 0 26 4 60%
5 16 21 23 -2 5 0 0 0 26 3
5 16 21 23 -2 5 0 0 0 26 3
5 16 21 24 -3 5 0 0 0 26 2
5 16 21 24 -3 5 0 0 0 26 2
5 16 21 25 -4 5 0 0 0 26 1
5 16 21 26 -5 5 0 0 0 26 0
5 16 21 26 -5 5 0 0 0 26 0
5 16 21 27 -6 10 0 0 0 31 4
5 16 21 28 -7 10 0 0 0 31 3
5 16 21 29 -8 10 0 0 0 31 2
5 16 21 29 -8 10 0 0 0 31 2
5 16 21 30 -9 10 0 0 0 31 1
5 16 21 31 -10 10 0 0 0 31 0
5 16 21 32 -11 15 0 0 0 36 4
5 16 21 33 -12 15 0 0 0 36 3
5 16 21 34 -13 15 0 0 0 36 2
55% 51.4% 47.4% 43.6% 39.8% 36.2% 32.6% 54.0% 50.0% 46.1% 42.3% 38.6% 35.0% 52.6% 48.7% 44.8%
A-14
Table A-8 Dominica Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 87 2010 89 2011 91 2012 94 2013 96 2014 99 2015 101 2016 104 2017 106 2018 109 2019 112 2020 114 2021 117 2022 120 2023 123 2024 126 2025 129 2026 133 2027 136 2028 139
22 65 0 0 0 0 87
22 67 0 0 0 0 89
22 70 0 0 0 0 91
22 50 22 0 0 0 94
22 52 22 0 0 0 96
22 53 23 0 0 0 99
22 55 24 0 0 0 101
22 57 25 0 0 0 104
22 59 25 0 0 0 106
22 61 26 0 0 0 109
22 63 27 0 0 0 112
22 50 43 0 0 0 114
22 51 44 0 0 0 117
22 53 46 0 0 0 120
22 54 47 0 0 0 123
22 56 48 0 0 0 126
22 58 50 0 0 0 129
22 48 62 0 0 0 133
22 50 64 0 0 0 136
22 51 66 0 0 0 139
Table A-9 Dominica Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year 2009 Fuel and O&M Costs Hydro three plants 0.6 Thermal two plants 12.1 5 MW MSD 0.0 Geo Non-Export 0.0 Geo Export 0.0 Wind 0.0 Production Cost (million $) 13 Investment Costs (million $) 0.0 Total System Costs (million $) 13 2010 0.6 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 13 2011 0.6 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 15 2012 0.6 11.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 2.3 18 2013 0.6 11.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 16 2014 0.6 12.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 17 2015 0.6 13.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 19 2016 0.6 14.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 19 2017 0.6 14.5 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 20 2018 0.6 15.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 21 2019 0.6 15.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 21 2020 0.6 12.5 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 2.3 24 2021 0.6 13.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 22 2022 0.6 13.5 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 23 2023 0.6 13.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 23 2024 0.6 14.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 24 2025 0.6 15.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 25 2026 0.6 12.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 2.3 28 2027 0.6 13.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 27 2028 0.6 14.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 28
A-15
Table A-10 Dominican Republic Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) 290 128 101 118 35 0 50 72 33 28 39 100 46 11 100 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 12 387 85 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 2,941 -58 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,059 -176 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,180 -297 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,300 -417 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,409 -526 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,504 -621 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,620 -737 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,740 -857 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,864 -981 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,993 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,125 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,261 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,402 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,547 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,698 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,853 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,013 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,179 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,350 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,526 Inputs 2009 2,353 2010 2,447 2011 2,544 2012 2,640 2013 2,727 2014 2,803 2015 2,896 2016 2,992 2017 3,091 2018 3,194 2019 3,300 2020 3,409 2021 3,522 2022 3,638 2023 3,758 2024 3,882 2025 4,010 2026 4,143 2027 4,280 2028 4,421
-1,110 -1,242 -1,378 -1,519 -1,664 -1,815 -1,970 -2,130 -2,296 -2,467 -2,643
A-16
New Capacity (MW) Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 300 305 305 50 50 2 50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,033 92 29% 50 100 17 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,137 78 28% 50 100 17 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,182 2 25% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 239 34% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 130 30% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 35 50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,839 219 50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,839 99 50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 50 100 0 3,889 25 50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,189 196 50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,189 64 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,489 228 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,489 87 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 100 100 0 4,539 -8 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 0 4,839 141 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 0 4,839 -14 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,800 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,139 126 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,100 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,439 260 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,100 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,439 89 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,400 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,739 213
26.3% 32.6% 28.3% 25.8% 31.1% 26.9% 31.7% 27.5% 24.8% 28.8% 24.6% 28.1% 31.3% 27.1% 29.8%
A-17
Table A-11 Dominican Republic Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Inputs 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745
1709 1004 706 865 73 0 362 267 123 103 146 237 302 487 1057 515 523 425 75 226 202 369 516 202 116 75 129 1255 276
1476 820 583 1013 164 0 410 284 138 116 163 465 252 363 1257 771 401 328 62 188 161 275 377 157 123 118 144 1255 276
1562 866 614 1044 171 0 428 296 144 121 170 483 265 370 1283 795 410 335 64 193 165 281 383 161 128 122 150 1255 276
1390 770 546 914 153 0 383 263 129 108 152 431 236 321 1116 701 357 292 56 169 144 244 333 140 114 108 134 1255 276
1468 803 569 948 158 0 399 274 134 112 159 446 246 330 1148 724 368 302 58 175 149 252 343 145 119 111 139 1255 276
1534 834 591 977 164 0 413 283 139 116 164 460 255 338 1176 745 378 309 59 179 153 258 351 149 123 115 144 1255 276
1400 759 538 886 149 0 375 257 126 106 149 419 232 305 1062 676 341 280 54 162 138 233 317 134 111 104 131 1255 276
1460 789 559 921 155 0 390 267 131 110 155 435 241 317 1103 702 355 290 56 169 144 242 329 140 116 108 136 1255 276
1485 805 571 942 160 0 403 276 136 113 160 449 246 326 1133 723 365 299 57 174 148 249 338 144 120 111 141 1255 276
1369 747 530 871 148 0 373 256 126 105 149 417 229 302 1051 671 338 277 53 161 137 231 313 133 111 103 130 1255 276
1416 784 556 905 156 0 391 268 132 110 156 436 240 315 1097 701 353 289 56 168 143 241 327 139 116 108 137 1255 276
1329 733 519 846 146 0 365 250 123 103 145 409 224 294 1023 656 329 269 52 157 134 224 305 130 108 101 127 1255 276
1394 753 533 876 150 0 376 257 126 106 149 420 230 301 1050 674 338 277 53 161 137 230 313 133 111 104 131 1255 276
1431 772 546 898 154 0 385 263 129 108 153 431 236 309 1075 690 346 283 54 165 140 236 320 136 114 107 134 1255 276
1350 731 517 849 145 0 364 249 123 103 145 408 223 292 1018 653 328 268 52 156 133 223 303 129 108 101 127 1255 276
1388 774 547 884 154 0 384 263 129 108 153 431 236 307 1072 690 345 282 54 165 140 235 319 136 114 106 134 1255 276
1312 751 531 845 149 0 372 254 125 105 148 418 229 297 1034 667 333 273 52 159 135 227 308 131 110 103 130 1255 276
1253 732 518 814 145 0 362 247 122 102 144 407 223 288 1004 649 323 264 51 154 131 220 298 127 107 100 126 1255 276
1290 775 547 848 153 0 382 261 128 107 152 429 236 302 1053 683 339 278 54 162 138 231 313 134 113 106 133 1255 276
1238 765 539 821 152 0 375 256 126 106 149 423 233 294 1030 671 331 271 52 159 135 225 305 131 111 104 131 1255 276
A-18
Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Total Generation (GWh)
143 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12638
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 0 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 0 0 1597 1690 1769 3231 3371 3427 4735 4893 6129 6441 6614 7799 8000 9060 10075 10364 11352 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 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 0 226 208 216 202 211 433 409 423 402 385 399 384 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13142 13663 14179 14646 15054 15554 16070 16601 17154 17724 18309 18914 19539 20184 20851 21539 22251 22986 23745
A-19
Table A-12 Dominican Republic Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 140.2 58.8 45.0 114.0 16.0 0.0 45.0 32.1 15.2 12.7 17.9 47.1 20.3 43.2 145.0 88.6 47.7 39.0 7.4 22.3 19.2 32.7 44.6 18.7 14.1 13.5 16.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,149 0 1,149 2010 123.0 47.3 36.8 133.6 36.4 0.0 80.5 53.4 26.9 22.5 31.8 94.6 16.7 50.3 175.9 133.4 57.9 47.6 9.6 29.1 24.2 38.7 51.7 23.0 23.4 21.3 28.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,458 385 1,843 2011 127.0 49.4 38.3 134.7 40.7 0.0 91.5 60.4 30.6 25.6 36.2 105.6 17.5 55.4 192.3 147.2 64.1 52.8 10.7 32.4 26.9 42.7 57.0 25.5 26.4 23.5 31.8 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,588 112.5 1,701 2012 114.0 44.7 34.7 118.4 40.0 0.0 90.5 59.6 30.3 25.4 35.8 103.3 15.8 53.2 184.0 142.7 62.0 51.0 10.4 31.5 26.0 41.2 54.9 24.7 26.0 22.9 31.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 117.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,637 427.5 2,064 2013 117.3 46.3 35.9 119.9 42.6 0.0 98.3 64.6 32.9 27.5 38.9 109.9 16.3 56.9 194.4 151.1 66.4 54.7 11.2 33.9 27.9 44.1 58.7 26.5 28.2 24.2 34.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 121.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,729 0 1,729 2014 121.0 48.1 37.2 122.3 46.0 0.0 106.5 69.8 35.7 29.8 42.2 118.6 16.9 60.7 207.4 162.1 71.1 58.5 12.0 36.4 29.9 47.2 62.7 28.3 30.4 26.0 36.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 125.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,834 0 1,834 2015 111.0 44.2 34.3 111.1 43.3 0.0 100.0 65.5 33.5 28.0 39.6 111.5 15.6 56.7 194.1 152.3 66.5 54.8 11.2 34.1 28.0 44.1 58.6 26.5 28.6 24.5 34.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 230.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,827 285 2,112 2016 115.5 46.1 35.7 115.5 45.4 0.0 104.7 68.6 35.1 29.4 41.5 116.9 16.2 59.3 203.0 159.4 69.5 57.2 11.8 35.6 29.3 46.1 61.2 27.7 29.9 25.6 36.3 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 240.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,907 0 1,907 2017 118.0 46.9 36.4 118.6 46.9 0.0 108.5 71.0 36.4 30.4 43.0 120.8 16.5 61.0 208.8 164.2 71.6 59.0 12.1 36.7 30.2 47.5 63.1 28.6 31.0 26.4 37.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 245.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 3.1 0.0 1,983 22.5 2,006 2018 110.6 43.9 34.1 111.3 43.8 0.0 101.2 66.2 33.9 28.4 40.1 112.7 15.5 57.1 195.1 153.5 67.0 55.2 11.3 34.3 28.2 44.4 59.0 26.7 28.9 24.7 35.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 344.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 3.1 0.0 1,972 285 2,257 2019 114.8 45.4 35.2 116.2 46.2 0.0 106.5 69.7 35.7 29.9 42.2 118.9 16.0 59.7 204.6 161.4 70.1 57.8 11.9 36.0 29.6 46.5 61.7 28.0 30.4 25.9 36.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 357.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 3.1 0.0 2,061 0 2,061 2020 106.4 42.2 32.8 106.9 43.5 0.0 99.2 64.9 33.2 27.8 39.3 111.9 14.9 55.7 192.2 151.9 65.4 53.9 11.1 33.6 27.6 43.4 57.6 26.1 28.3 24.4 34.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 441.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 3.1 0.0 2,034 285 2,319 2021 108.4 43.3 33.6 107.7 45.0 0.0 103.0 67.4 34.5 28.9 40.8 115.7 15.3 57.6 198.3 156.9 67.7 55.8 11.5 34.8 28.6 44.9 59.5 27.0 29.4 25.2 35.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 450.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 3.1 0.0 2,092 0 2,092 2022 111.5 44.6 34.6 110.7 46.6 0.0 106.4 69.5 35.7 29.8 42.1 119.7 15.7 59.3 204.7 162.0 69.8 57.5 11.8 35.9 29.5 46.2 61.4 27.9 30.3 26.1 36.8 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 463.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 3.1 0.0 2,176 22.5 2,198 2023 105.9 42.3 32.8 105.1 44.0 0.0 100.7 65.9 33.8 28.2 39.9 113.0 14.9 56.3 193.7 153.3 66.2 54.5 11.2 34.0 27.9 43.9 58.2 26.4 28.7 24.7 34.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 549.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 3.1 0.0 2,175 285 2,460 2024 111.9 44.3 34.4 112.7 47.2 0.0 107.0 69.9 35.9 30.0 42.4 121.1 15.6 59.5 206.2 163.6 70.0 57.7 11.9 36.0 29.6 46.4 61.6 28.0 30.5 26.3 37.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 580.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 3.1 0.0 2,304 0 2,304 2025 108.7 42.8 33.2 110.6 46.3 0.0 104.7 68.4 35.1 29.4 41.5 118.8 15.1 58.1 201.6 160.3 68.4 56.3 11.6 35.2 28.9 45.3 60.1 27.3 29.9 25.8 36.2 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 675.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 3.1 0.0 2,361 285 2,646 2026 106.4 41.6 32.3 109.0 45.6 0.0 102.7 67.1 34.4 28.8 40.7 116.9 14.7 56.9 197.9 157.6 67.0 55.2 11.4 34.5 28.3 44.4 58.8 26.8 29.3 25.4 35.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 770.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 3.1 0.0 2,424 285 2,709 2027 111.5 43.2 33.5 115.6 48.7 0.0 109.9 71.7 36.9 30.8 43.6 124.9 15.2 60.3 209.9 167.7 71.2 58.7 12.1 36.7 30.1 47.1 62.4 28.4 31.3 27.0 38.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 807.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 3.1 0.0 2,561 0 2,561 2028 109.1 42.0 32.6 114.0 49.2 0.0 109.7 71.5 36.8 30.8 43.5 126.1 14.8 59.8 210.0 168.6 70.7 58.2 12.0 36.5 29.9 46.7 62.0 28.2 31.2 27.2 37.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 901.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 3.1 0.0 2,647 285 2,932
A-20
Table A-13 Grenada Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 31 2010 33 2011 34 2012 36 2013 38 2014 40 2015 42 2016 45 2017 47 2018 50 2019 52 2020 55 2021 58 2022 61 2023 64 2024 68 2025 72 2026 75 2027 80 2028 84
17 16 16 49 42 7 0 0 0 49 7 57%
17 16 16 49 44 4 0 0 0 49 4 49%
17 16 16 49 46 2 0 0 0 49 2 41%
17 16 16 49 49 0 0 0 0 49 0 34%
17 16 16 49 52 -3 10 0 0 59 7
17 16 16 49 54 -6 10 0 0 59 4
17 16 16 49 57 -9 10 0 0 59 1
17 16 16 49 60 -12 20 0 0 69 8
17 16 16 49 64 -15 20 0 0 69 5
17 16 16 49 67 -18 20 0 0 69 2
17 16 16 49 71 -22 30 0 0 79 8
17 16 16 49 74 -26 30 0 0 79 4
17 16 16 49 78 -30 30 0 0 79 0
17 16 16 49 83 -34 40 0 0 89 6
17 16 16 49 87 -39 40 0 0 89 1
17 16 16 49 92 -43 50 0 0 99 7
17 16 16 49 97 -48 50 0 0 99 2
17 16 16 49 102 -53 60 0 0 109 7
17 16 16 49 107 -59 60 0 0 109 1
17 16 16 49 113 -65 70 0 0 119 5
53% 45.4% 37.9% 53.3% 45.5% 38.0% 50.1% 42.4% 35.2% 44.6% 37.2% 45.0% 37.6% 43.8% 36.4% 41.4%
A-21
Table A-14 Grenada Base Case Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 209 2011 220 2012 232 2013 244 2014 257 2015 270 2016 285 2017 300 2018 316 2019 333 2020 350 2021 369 2022 389 2023 409 2024 431 2025 454 2026 478 2027 504 2028 530
198 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Queens Park 67 Queens Park 65 Queens Park 65 10 MW MSD 0 10 MW CFB 0 Wind 0 Total Generation (GWh) 198
71 69 69 0 0 0 209
75 73 73 0 0 0 220
79 76 76 0 0 0 232
66 64 64 51 0 0 244
69 67 67 53 0 0 257
73 71 71 56 0 0 270
64 62 62 98 0 0 285
67 65 65 103 0 0 300
71 68 68 108 0 0 316
64 62 62 146 0 0 333
67 65 65 154 0 0 350
70 68 68 162 0 0 369
65 63 63 198 0 0 389
68 66 66 209 0 0 409
64 62 62 244 0 0 431
67 65 65 257 0 0 454
64 62 62 291 0 0 478
67 65 65 307 0 0 504
64 62 62 342 0 0 530
Table A-15 Grenada Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 10.9 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2010 11.8 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2011 13.3 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2012 15.2 14.8 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 0 45 2013 13.1 12.7 12.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 47 4.5 52 2014 14.4 14.0 14.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 52 0 52 2015 15.6 15.1 15.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 56 0 56 2016 13.8 13.4 13.4 17.7 0.0 0.0 58 4.5 63 2017 14.5 14.1 14.1 18.7 0.0 0.0 61 0 61 2018 15.3 14.9 14.9 19.7 0.0 0.0 65 0 65 2019 13.9 13.5 13.5 26.8 0.0 0.0 68 4.5 72 2020 14.7 14.3 14.3 28.3 0.0 0.0 72 0 72 2021 15.6 15.1 15.1 30.0 0.0 0.0 76 0 76 2022 14.5 14.0 14.0 37.2 0.0 0.0 80 4.5 84 2023 15.2 14.7 14.7 39.0 0.0 0.0 84 0 84 2024 14.4 14.0 14.0 46.2 0.0 0.0 88 4.5 93 2025 15.3 14.8 14.8 49.1 0.0 0.0 94 0 94 2026 14.6 14.2 14.2 56.4 0.0 0.0 99 4.5 104 2027 15.6 15.1 15.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 106 0 106 2028 15.3 14.8 14.8 68.7 0.0 0.0 114 4.5 118
A-22
Table A-16 Haiti Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces Total Existing (MW) 2009 226 2010 237 2011 249 2012 261 2013 274 2014 288 2015 303 2016 318 2017 334 2018 350 2019 368 2020 386 2021 405 2022 426 2023 447 2024 469 2025 493 2026 517 2027 543 2028 570
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 308 -153 30 30 100 0 315 7 33%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 324 -169 30 30 120 0 335 11 35%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 340 -185 30 30 140 0 355 15 36%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 357 -202 30 30 160 0 375 18
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 375 -220 30 30 160 0 375 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 393 -238 30 30 180 0 395 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 413 -258 30 30 200 0 415 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 434 -279 30 30 220 0 435 1
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 455 -300 30 30 240 0 455 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 478 -323 30 30 280 0 495 17
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 502 -347 30 30 300 0 515 13
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 527 -372 30 30 320 0 535 8
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 553 -398 30 30 340 0 555 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 581 -426 30 30 380 0 595 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 610 -455 30 30 400 0 615 5
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 641 -486 30 30 440 0 655 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 673 -518 30 30 460 0 675 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 706 -551 30 30 500 0 715 9
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 742 -587 30 30 540 0 755 13
Required Capacity (MW) 293 Existing System -138 Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) E-Power 30 Gov of Brazil 30 20 MW LSD 80 Wind 0 Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 295 2 31%
37% 30.2% 30.6% 30.6% 30.4% 29.9% 34.6% 33.4% 32.0% 30.4% 33.1% 31.0% 32.9% 30.5% 31.6% 32.3%
A-23
Table A-17 Haiti Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 660 2010 726 2011 799 2012 878 2013 966 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782
67 48 71 30 15 54 11 75 79 210 0 660
69 49 71 31 15 56 11 77 79 269 0 726
71 50 71 32 16 58 11 79 79 333 0 799
74 52 71 33 17 60 11 82 79 401 0 878
76 54 71 35 17 62 11 85 79 477 0 966
86 60 71 39 19 70 11 95 79 534 0 1063
89 63 71 40 20 73 11 99 79 625 0 1169
93 66 71 42 21 76 11 103 79 725 0 1286
97 69 71 44 22 80 11 108 79 834 0 1415
102 72 71 46 23 84 11 113 79 955 0 1556
102 72 71 46 23 83 11 113 79 1112 0 1712
108 76 71 49 24 88 11 119 79 1258 0 1883
108 76 71 49 25 89 11 120 79 1350 0 1977
109 77 71 50 25 89 11 121 79 1445 0 2076
106 75 71 48 24 86 11 117 79 1564 0 2180
107 76 71 49 24 88 11 119 79 1667 0 2289
105 74 71 48 24 86 11 116 79 1792 0 2403
106 75 71 48 24 87 11 118 79 1904 0 2523
105 74 71 48 24 86 11 116 79 2037 0 2650
103 73 71 47 24 85 11 115 79 2175 0 2782
Table A-18 Haiti Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 11.4 8.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 11.9 0.4 10.7 1.2 28.5 0.0 82 38.4 120 2010 12.0 8.5 0.0 6.9 3.5 12.5 0.4 11.2 1.2 37.4 0.0 94 9.6 103 2011 13.1 9.3 0.0 7.6 3.8 13.6 0.4 12.3 1.2 49.3 0.0 111 9.6 120 2012 14.7 10.4 0.0 8.5 4.2 15.3 0.4 13.8 1.2 64.6 0.0 133 9.6 143 2013 15.7 11.1 0.0 9.0 4.5 16.2 0.4 14.7 1.2 78.5 0.0 151 9.6 161 2014 18.1 12.8 0.0 10.4 5.2 18.8 0.4 17.0 1.2 90.9 0.0 175 0 175 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
19.3 20.3 21.2 22.3 22.4 23.7 24.0 24.4 23.6 24.2 23.9 24.5 24.5 24.8 13.7 14.3 15.0 15.8 15.8 16.7 16.9 17.2 16.6 17.1 16.9 17.3 17.3 17.5 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 11.1 11.7 12.2 12.9 12.9 13.6 13.8 14.0 13.6 13.9 13.8 14.1 14.1 14.3 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.0 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.1 20.1 21.1 22.0 23.1 23.3 24.6 24.9 25.3 24.4 25.1 24.8 25.4 25.4 25.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 18.2 19.2 20.1 21.1 21.2 22.4 22.7 23.0 22.3 22.8 22.6 23.2 23.1 23.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 109.4 127.8 147.0 168.6 197.6 223.8 241.7 261.1 282.1 304.5 331.4 355.4 385.7 421.1 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 0.0 199 222 245 272 301 333 352 374 391 416 442 469 499 535 9.6 209 9.6 231 9.6 255 9.6 281 19.2 321 9.6 343 9.6 362 9.6 383 19.2 410 9.6 426 19.2 461 9.6 478 19.2 518 19.2 555
A-24
Table A-19 Jamaica Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Wigton Hydro Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) Kingston Hunts Bay Petcoke Windalco Jamalco Wigton 50 MW GT 100 MW CC 50 MW GT 100 MW ConvCoal Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 680 2010 707 2011 736 2012 767 2013 799 2014 832 2015 867 2016 904 2017 943 2018 983 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,026 1,071 1,116 1,165 1,214 1,267 1,322 1,379 1,439 1,502
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 850 -68 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 1 25%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 884 -103 68 0 0 85 6 0 0 0 0 0 935 51 32%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 921 -139 68 0 0 85 12 0 0 0 0 0 935 15 27%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 959 -177 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 0
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 998 -217 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 0
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
1,039 1,083 1,130 1,179 1,229 1,282 1,338 1,396 1,456 1,518 1,583 1,652 1,724 1,799 1,877 -286 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 0 0 -330 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 100 0 -377 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 200 0 -426 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 200 0 -476 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 300 0 -529 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 300 0 -620 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 400 0 -677 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 500 0 -795 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 600 0 -857 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 600 0 -984 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 800 0 -1,053 -1,190 -1,265 -1,343 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 800 0 68 68 68 120 120 120 60 60 60 85 85 85 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,100 0 0 0
1,055 1,055 1,087 1,187 1,287 1,287 1,387 1,387 1,452 1,552 1,595 1,595 1,733 1,733 1,868 1,868 1,968 97 38% 57 47 103 156 108 157 104 114 156 139 77 150 81 144 69 91
32% 30.7% 36.9% 42.3% 36.4% 41.0% 35.2% 35.6% 39.0% 36.9% 31.3% 36.8% 31.1% 35.4% 29.8% 31.0%
A-25
Table A-20 Jamaica Base Case Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 4,490 4,674 4,865 5,066 5,277 5,494 5,726 5,974 6,232 6,497 6,777 7,073 7,376 7,696 8,024 8,370 8,734 9,114 9,510 9,924 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Old Harbour 153 123 127 128 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Old Harbour 305 245 252 256 268 264 248 234 245 233 244 236 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Old Harbour 331 266 274 277 291 286 269 254 266 253 264 256 247 248 259 0 0 0 0 0 Old Harbour 349 280 288 292 306 301 284 268 280 266 278 270 260 261 273 257 268 257 269 263 Hunts Bay 349 280 288 292 306 301 284 268 280 266 278 270 260 261 273 257 268 0 0 0 Hunts Bay 62 78 82 118 123 121 115 109 114 108 113 110 106 107 112 106 111 106 111 110 Hunts Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockfort 237 192 199 130 135 130 121 114 119 113 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bogue 63 80 84 116 121 119 113 107 112 106 111 108 104 105 110 104 109 104 109 108 Bogue 99 126 132 237 247 245 233 220 230 219 229 224 215 217 227 215 225 217 227 224 Bogue 127 161 169 205 214 210 199 188 196 187 195 190 183 184 193 182 190 183 191 188 Bogue 526 668 700 477 495 478 445 419 438 415 433 421 404 405 423 397 414 395 411 403 JEP Barge 1 562 458 472 270 281 269 249 234 245 232 241 234 224 225 234 219 228 217 225 220 JEP Barge 2 379 308 318 182 189 181 168 158 165 156 163 157 151 151 158 148 154 146 152 148 JPPC Owned 468 382 394 220 228 218 202 190 198 188 195 189 182 182 190 178 184 175 182 178 Jamalco 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Wigton 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Hydro 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Kingston 348 Hunts Bay Petcoke 0 Windalco 0 Jamalco 0 Wigton 0 50 MW GT 0 100 MW CC 0 50 MW GT 0 100 MW ConvCoal 0 Wind 0 Total Generation (GWh) 4490 441 0 0 436 17 0 0 0 0 0 4674 462 0 0 457 34 0 0 0 0 0 4865 262 1021 0 399 50 0 0 0 0 0 5066 272 1071 0 414 50 0 0 0 0 0 5277 260 988 537 404 50 0 0 0 0 0 5494 240 888 492 380 50 0 0 0 613 0 5726 226 823 464 358 50 0 0 0 1158 0 5974 236 850 487 374 50 0 0 0 1213 0 6232 224 798 463 355 50 0 0 0 1731 0 6497 233 830 485 371 50 0 0 0 1812 0 6777 226 805 474 361 50 0 0 0 2360 0 7073 216 768 456 347 50 0 0 0 2842 0 7376 217 756 454 349 50 0 0 0 3391 0 7696 226 784 474 364 50 0 0 0 3542 0 8024 212 726 442 343 50 0 0 0 4400 0 8370 220 757 462 359 50 0 0 0 4602 0 8734 209 711 436 343 50 0 0 0 5429 0 9114 217 742 456 358 50 0 0 0 5676 0 9510 213 731 450 352 50 0 0 0 6154 0 9924
A-26
Table A-21 Jamaica Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Wigton Hydro 2009 19.4 38.8 42.0 44.3 44.3 15.2 0.0 22.7 15.2 28.0 28.3 79.6 48.2 32.5 39.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2010 2011 2012 31.7 63.1 68.4 72.1 72.1 35.1 0.0 24.1 33.7 80.5 55.4 87.6 45.2 30.5 36.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 42.9 42.3 0.0 88.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 912 271.5 1,184 2013 34.6 69.0 74.8 78.8 78.8 37.6 0.0 26.0 36.1 86.2 59.3 93.4 48.8 32.9 38.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 45.6 44.5 0.0 94.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 983 0 983 2014 0.0 71.1 77.1 81.2 81.2 38.8 0.0 26.3 37.3 89.4 61.0 94.1 48.9 33.0 38.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 45.5 41.7 21.9 96.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 987 132 2015 0.0 69.2 75.0 79.1 79.1 38.0 0.0 25.3 36.5 87.9 59.6 90.6 46.9 31.6 37.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 43.6 38.2 20.0 93.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 987 220 2016 0.0 66.0 71.5 75.4 75.4 36.3 0.0 24.1 34.8 83.8 56.8 86.2 44.6 30.1 35.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 41.5 36.2 18.9 89.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.4 0.0 971 220 2017 0.0 69.3 75.2 79.2 79.2 38.0 0.0 25.3 36.5 87.9 59.5 90.1 46.7 31.5 37.1 0.5 0.9 1.1 43.3 37.5 19.6 93.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.6 0.0 1,015 0 2018 0.0 66.2 71.7 75.6 75.6 36.3 0.0 24.1 34.8 83.9 56.9 86.0 44.6 30.0 35.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 41.3 35.6 18.6 89.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.5 0.0 999 220 2019 0.0 69.5 75.4 79.4 79.4 38.3 0.0 25.2 36.7 88.6 59.9 90.2 46.5 31.4 36.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 2020 0.0 67.1 72.8 76.6 76.6 37.5 0.0 0.0 35.9 86.7 58.6 88.0 45.0 30.3 35.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 2021 0.0 65.4 70.9 74.7 74.7 36.3 0.0 0.0 34.8 84.0 56.8 85.1 43.7 29.5 34.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 2022 0.0 0.0 71.9 75.8 75.8 36.9 0.0 0.0 35.4 85.6 57.7 86.2 44.1 29.7 35.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 2023 0.0 0.0 74.9 78.9 78.9 38.4 0.0 0.0 36.9 89.1 60.1 89.6 45.8 30.9 36.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2024 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.1 75.1 36.9 0.0 0.0 35.4 85.7 57.6 85.4 43.4 29.3 34.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 2025 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1 79.1 39.1 0.0 0.0 37.4 90.7 60.9 89.9 45.5 30.6 36.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 2026 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.5 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 88.2 59.2 86.8 43.7 29.5 34.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2027 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.1 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 38.5 93.5 62.6 91.5 46.0 31.0 36.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 2028 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.8 0.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 38.9 94.5 63.2 91.7 45.6 30.7 36.1 0.5 0.9 1.1
25.2 28.3 50.3 56.4 54.5 61.2 57.4 64.4 57.4 64.4 19.9 22.3 0.0 0.0 29.3 32.8 19.9 22.3 36.6 41.1 36.9 41.6 103.8 116.7 62.2 69.7 41.9 47.0 50.7 56.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 82.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 791 96.75 887 67.4 0.0 0.0 92.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 888 7.5 895
Kingston 46.4 Hunts Bay Petcoke 0.0 Windalco 0.0 Jamalco 0.0 Wigton 0.0 50 MW GT 0.0 100 MW CC 0.0 50 MW GT 0.0 100 MW ConvCoal 0.0 Wind 0.0 Production Cost (million $) 547 Investment Costs (million $) 0 Total System Costs (million $) 547
43.2 42.1 40.8 41.2 42.8 40.7 42.7 41.2 43.2 43.2 36.6 35.2 33.9 33.8 35.0 32.5 33.4 31.5 32.3 31.3 19.1 18.4 17.7 17.6 18.2 16.9 17.4 16.3 16.8 16.2 93.7 91.6 88.7 90.0 93.6 89.6 94.5 91.6 96.7 97.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.9 119.2 143.2 171.1 176.8 219.0 225.2 265.1 271.7 289.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,046 1,020 1,018 991 1,029 960 1,005 942 985 1,003 0 220 220 220 0 440 0 440 0 985 220 1,223
1,119 1,207 1,191 1,015 1,219 1,046 1,240 1,238 1,211 1,029 1,400 1,005 1,382
A-27
Table A-22 St. Kitts Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 29 2010 30 2011 31 2012 32 2013 33 2014 35 2015 36 2016 37 2017 38 2018 40 2019 41 2020 43 2021 44 2022 46 2023 47 2024 49 2025 51 2026 52 2027 54 2028 56
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 2 0 0 42 2 43%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 41 1 0 0 42 1 38%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 42 0 0 0 42 0 33%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 43 -2 5 0 47 3 44%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 45 -3 5 0 47 2
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 47 -5 5 0 47 0
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 48 -7 10 0 52 3
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 50 -8 10 0 52 2
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 52 -10 10 0 52 0
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 54 -12 15 0 57 3
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 55 -14 15 0 57 1
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 57 -16 20 0 62 4
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 59 -18 20 0 62 2
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 62 -20 25 0 67 5
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 64 -22 25 0 67 3
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 66 -24 25 0 67 1
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 68 -27 30 0 72 3
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 71 -29 30 0 72 1
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 73 -32 35 0 77 3
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 76 -34 35 0 77 1
40% 34.8% 44.2% 39.2% 34.5% 42.5% 37.6% 44.7% 39.8% 46.0% 41.0% 36.2% 41.4% 36.6% 41.1% 36.3%
A-28
Table A-23 St. Kitts Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units 5 MW MSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 161 2010 166 2011 171 2012 175 2013 180 2014 186 2015 191 2016 196 2017 202 2018 208 2019 214 2020 220 2021 226 2022 233 2023 239 2024 246 2025 253 2026 261 2027 268 2028 276
24 32 33 27 13 32 0 0 161
25 32 34 28 14 33 0 0 166
26 33 35 29 14 34 0 0 171
24 30 32 26 13 31 20 0 175
24 31 33 27 13 32 20 0 180
25 32 34 28 13 33 21 0 186
23 30 31 26 12 30 38 0 191
24 31 32 26 13 31 40 0 196
24 32 33 27 13 32 41 0 202
23 30 31 25 12 30 57 0 208
23 30 32 26 13 31 59 0 214
22 29 30 25 12 29 74 0 220
23 29 31 25 12 30 76 0 226
22 28 29 24 12 28 90 0 233
22 29 30 25 12 29 93 0 239
23 30 31 25 12 30 95 0 246
22 28 30 24 12 29 109 0 253
22 29 30 25 12 29 112 0 261
22 28 29 24 12 28 126 0 268
22 29 30 25 12 29 129 0 276
Table A-24 St. Kitts Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C 5 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 23 0 23 2010 3.6 4.7 5.2 4.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 4.0 5.2 5.7 4.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 27 0 27 2012 4.0 5.2 5.7 4.7 2.3 3.3 0.0 30 2.25 33 2013 4.2 5.4 6.1 5.0 2.4 3.5 0.0 32 0 32 2014 4.5 5.8 6.5 5.3 2.6 3.7 0.0 34 0 34 2015 4.3 5.6 6.2 5.1 2.5 7.2 0.0 37 2.25 39 2016 4.5 5.8 6.4 5.3 2.6 7.4 0.0 38 0 38 2017 4.6 6.0 6.6 5.4 2.6 7.7 0.0 39 0 39 2018 4.3 5.6 6.2 5.1 2.5 10.8 0.0 40 2.25 43 2019 4.5 5.8 6.5 5.3 2.6 11.2 0.0 42 0 42 2020 4.3 5.5 6.1 5.0 2.4 14.1 0.0 43 2.25 45 2021 4.4 5.7 6.3 5.2 2.5 14.6 0.0 45 0 45 2022 4.2 5.5 6.1 5.0 2.4 17.5 0.0 46 2.25 49 2023 4.3 5.6 6.2 5.1 2.5 18.0 0.0 47 0 47 2024 4.5 5.8 6.5 5.3 2.6 18.7 0.0 49 0 49 2025 4.4 5.6 6.3 5.1 2.5 21.7 0.0 51 2.25 54 2026 4.5 5.9 6.5 5.3 2.6 22.5 0.0 53 0 53 2027 4.4 5.7 6.4 5.2 2.5 25.6 0.0 56 2.25 58 2028 4.6 6.0 6.7 5.5 2.7 26.9 0.0 58 0 58
A-29
Table A-25 Nevis Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2 4 5 3 14 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 46% 2 4 5 3 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 38% 2 4 5 3 14 14 -1 5 0 0 0 19 4 77% 2 4 5 3 14 15 -1 5 0 0 0 19 4 67% 2 4 5 3 14 16 -2 5 0 0 0 19 3 2 4 5 3 14 17 -3 5 0 0 0 19 2 2 4 5 3 14 18 -4 5 0 0 0 19 1 2 4 5 3 14 19 -5 5 0 0 0 19 0 2 4 5 3 14 20 -6 10 0 0 0 24 4 2 4 5 3 14 22 -8 10 0 0 0 24 2 2 4 5 3 14 23 -9 10 0 0 0 24 1 2 4 5 3 14 24 -10 10 0 0 0 24 0 2 4 5 3 14 26 -12 15 0 0 0 29 3 2 4 5 3 14 27 -13 15 0 0 0 29 2 2 4 5 3 14 29 -15 15 0 0 0 29 0 2 4 5 3 14 31 -17 20 0 0 0 34 3 2 4 5 3 14 32 -18 20 0 0 0 34 2 2 4 5 3 14 34 -20 20 0 0 0 34 0 2 4 5 3 14 36 -22 25 0 0 0 39 3 2 4 5 3 14 39 -25 25 0 0 0 39 0 2009 10 2010 10 2011 11 2012 11 2013 12 2014 13 2015 13 2016 14 2017 15 2018 16 2019 17 2020 18 2021 19 2022 20 2023 21 2024 23 2025 24 2026 25 2027 27 2028 29
58% 48.8% 40.5% 32.6% 58.2% 49.3% 40.9% 33.0% 51.8% 43.2% 35.2% 49.7% 41.3% 33.3% 44.4% 36.3%
A-30
Table A-26 Nevis Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 60 2010 67 2011 74 0 7 17 19 10 22 0 0 0 74 2012 82 0 7 18 21 11 24 0 0 0 82 2013 86 0 8 19 22 12 25 0 0 0 86 2014 90 0 8 20 23 12 27 0 0 0 90 2015 94 0 9 21 24 13 28 0 0 0 94 2016 99 0 9 22 25 14 29 0 0 0 99 2017 103 0 7 18 20 11 47 0 0 0 103 2018 107 0 7 18 21 11 49 0 0 0 107 2019 111 0 8 19 22 12 50 0 0 0 111 2020 115 0 8 20 23 12 52 0 0 0 115 2021 119 0 7 17 19 10 66 0 0 0 119 2022 124 0 7 17 20 11 69 0 0 0 124 2023 129 0 7 18 21 11 72 0 0 0 129 2024 134 0 6 16 18 10 84 0 0 0 134 2025 139 0 7 17 19 10 87 0 0 0 139 2026 145 0 7 17 19 11 90 0 0 0 145 2027 150 0 6 15 18 9 102 0 0 0 150 2028 156 0 6 16 18 10 106 0 0 0 156
8 19 22 12 0 0 0 0 60
9 21 24 13 0 0 0 0 67
Table A-27 Nevis Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 1.2 3.0 3.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0 9 2010 1.4 3.4 3.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 11 2011 1.2 2.9 3.2 1.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 2.25 15 2012 1.4 3.4 3.9 2.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0 15 2013 1.5 3.7 4.2 2.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0 16 2014 1.7 4.0 4.6 2.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0 17 2015 1.8 4.3 4.9 2.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0 19 2016 1.9 4.5 5.2 2.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0 20 2017 1.6 3.7 4.2 2.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 2.25 23 2018 1.6 3.8 4.4 2.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0 21 2019 1.7 4.0 4.6 2.5 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2020 1.8 4.2 4.7 2.6 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0 23 2021 1.5 3.6 4.1 2.2 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 2.25 26 2022 1.6 3.7 4.3 2.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2023 1.6 3.9 4.4 2.4 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0 26 2024 1.5 3.5 3.9 2.1 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 2.25 30 2025 1.5 3.6 4.1 2.2 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0 29 2026 1.6 3.8 4.3 2.3 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0 30 2027 1.5 3.5 4.0 2.1 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 2.25 34 2028 1.6 3.7 4.2 2.3 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0 34
A-31
Table A-28 St. Lucia Base Case Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Rooftop solar Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 56 2010 58 2011 61 2012 63 2013 65 2014 68 2015 70 2016 73 2017 76 2018 79 2019 82 2020 85 2021 88 2022 91 2023 95 2024 98 2025 102 2026 106 2027 110 2028 114
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 76 0 0 0 0 76 0
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 79 -2 20 0 0 96 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 82 -5 20 0 0 96 15
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 85 -9 20 0 0 96 11
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 88 -12 20 0 0 96 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 91 -15 20 0 0 96 5
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 95 -19 20 0 0 96 1
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 98 -22 40 0 0 116 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 102 -26 40 0 0 116 14
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 106 -30 40 0 0 116 10
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 110 -34 40 0 0 116 6
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 114 -38 40 0 0 116 2
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 119 -42 60 0 0 136 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 123 -47 60 0 0 136 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 128 -52 60 0 0 136 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 133 -56 60 0 0 136 4
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 138 -62 80 0 0 156 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 143 -67 80 0 0 156 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 148 -72 80 0 0 156 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 154 -78 80 0 0 156 2
35.7% 65.0% 59.0% 53.2% 47.6% 42.2% 36.9% 59.4% 53.5% 47.9% 42.5% 37.3% 55.0% 49.3% 43.9% 38.6% 53.1% 47.5% 42.1% 36.9%
A-32
Table A-29 St. Lucia Base Case Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Cul de Sac Rooftop solar 20 MW LSD 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 345 2010 356 2011 367 2012 378 2013 390 2014 402 2015 415 2016 428 2017 442 2018 455 2019 470 2020 484 2021 500 2022 515 2023 531 2024 548 2025 565 2026 583 2027 601 2028 620
53 28 169 94 0.1 0 0 0 345
42 22 133 74 0.1 85 0 0 356
43 23 137 76 0.1 87 0 0 367
45 23 142 78 0.1 90 0 0 378
46 24 146 81 0.1 93 0 0 390
47 25 151 83 0.1 96 0 0 402
49 26 155 86 0.1 99 0 0 415
41 21 129 72 0.1 165 0 0 428
42 22 134 74 0.1 170 0 0 442
43 23 138 76 0.1 175 0 0 455
45 23 142 79 0.1 181 0 0 470
46 24 146 81 0.1 186 0 0 484
40 21 127 70 0.1 242 0 0 500
41 22 131 72 0.1 249 0 0 515
42 22 135 75 0.1 257 0 0 531
44 23 139 77 0.1 265 0 0 548
39 20 123 68 0.1 314 0 0 565
40 21 127 71 0.1 324 0 0 583
41 22 131 73 0.1 334 0 0 601
43 22 135 75 0.1 344 0 0 620
Table A-30 St. Lucia Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs 2009 2010 6.5 3.4 20.3 11.2 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 53 9.6 62 2011 7.2 3.8 22.3 12.4 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 58 0 58 2012 8.1 4.3 25.1 13.9 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 65 0 65 2013 8.6 4.5 26.6 14.7 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 69 0 69 2014 9.2 4.8 28.5 15.8 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 74 0 74 2015 9.8 5.1 30.3 16.8 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 79 0 79 2016 8.3 4.4 25.7 14.2 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 81 9.6 91 2017 8.5 4.5 26.5 14.7 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 84 0 84 2018 8.8 4.6 27.4 15.2 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 87 0 87 2019 9.2 4.8 28.4 15.7 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 90 0 90 2020 9.5 5.0 29.4 16.3 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 93 0 93 2021 8.3 4.4 25.8 14.3 0.0 43.4 0.0 0.0 96 9.6 106 2022 8.6 4.5 26.8 14.8 0.0 45.1 0.0 0.0 100 0 100 2023 8.9 4.7 27.5 15.2 0.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 103 0 103 2024 9.3 4.9 28.7 15.9 0.0 48.3 0.0 0.0 107 0 107 2025 8.4 4.4 25.9 14.3 0.0 58.2 0.0 0.0 111 9.6 121 2026 8.7 4.6 26.9 14.9 0.0 60.5 0.0 0.0 116 0 116 2027 9.1 4.8 28.1 15.6 0.0 63.1 0.0 0.0 121 0 121 2028 9.6 5.0 29.6 16.4 0.0 66.5 0.0 0.0 127 0 127
Cul de Sac 8.0 Cul de Sac 4.2 Cul de Sac 24.7 Cul de Sac 13.7 Rooftop solar 0.0 20 MW LSD 0.0 20 MW LSD 0.0 Wind 0.0 Production Cost (million $) 51 Investment Costs (million $) 0 Total System Costs (million $) 51
A-33
Table A-31 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Capacity Balance
Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 27 2010 28 2011 30 2012 32 2013 35 2014 37 2015 40 2016 42 2017 45 2018 48 2019 52 2020 55 2021 59 2022 63 2023 68 2024 72 2025 77 2026 83 2027 88 2028 94
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 36 22 0 0 0 58 22
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 38 20 0 0 0 58 20
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 41 17 0 0 0 58 17
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 44 14 0 0 0 58 14
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 47 11 0 0 0 58 11
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 50 8 0 0 0 58 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 53 5 0 0 0 58 5
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 57 1 0 0 0 58 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 61 -3 10 0 0 68 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 65 -7 10 0 0 68 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 70 -12 20 0 0 78 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 75 -17 20 0 0 78 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 80 -22 30 0 0 88 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 85 -27 30 0 0 88 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 91 -33 40 0 0 98 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 98 -39 40 0 0 98 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 104 -46 50 0 0 108 4
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 111 -53 60 0 0 118 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 119 -61 70 0 0 128 9
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 127 -69 70 0 0 128 1
118.8% 104.7% 91.5% 79.1% 67.5% 56.7% 46.6% 37.1% 50.3% 40.6% 50.9% 41.1% 48.9% 39.3% 45.1% 35.7% 39.9% 43.0% 45.1% 35.7%
A-34
Table A-32 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Energy Balance
Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 156 2010 167 2011 178 2012 191 2013 204 2014 218 2015 233 2016 249 2017 266 2018 284 2019 304 2020 325 2021 348 2022 372 2023 397 2024 425 2025 454 2026 485 2027 519 2028 555
31 7 98 7 6 7 0 0 0 0 156
33 7 105 7 6 8 0 0 0 0 167
36 7 113 8 7 8 0 0 0 0 178
38 7 121 8 7 9 0 0 0 0 191
41 7 129 9 8 10 0 0 0 0 204
44 7 139 10 8 10 1 0 0 0 218
47 7 149 10 9 11 1 0 0 0 233
50 7 159 11 9 12 1 0 0 0 249
45 7 143 10 8 11 1 41 0 0 266
48 7 153 11 9 12 1 44 0 0 284
45 7 142 10 8 11 1 82 0 0 304
48 7 152 11 9 11 1 88 0 0 325
45 7 143 10 8 11 1 124 0 0 348
48 7 153 11 9 11 1 132 0 0 372
46 7 146 10 9 11 1 168 0 0 397
49 7 156 11 9 12 1 180 0 0 425
48 7 151 11 9 11 1 218 0 0 454
46 7 147 10 9 11 1 255 0 0 485
46 7 145 10 9 11 1 292 0 0 519
49 7 155 11 9 12 1 312 0 0 555
Table A-33 St. Vincent and Grenadines Base Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 4.7 0.2 14.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2010 5.2 0.2 15.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 5.9 0.2 17.6 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0 28 2012 6.8 0.2 20.4 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2013 7.5 0.2 22.3 1.8 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2014 8.3 0.2 24.8 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2015 9.2 0.2 27.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 43 0 43 2016 9.9 0.2 29.4 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 47 0 47 2017 9.0 0.2 26.7 2.1 1.8 2.3 0.1 7.6 0.0 0.0 50 4.5 54 2018 9.6 0.2 28.6 2.3 2.0 2.4 0.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 53 0 53 2019 9.0 0.2 26.7 2.1 1.8 2.3 0.1 15.1 0.0 0.0 57 4.5 62 2020 9.6 0.2 28.6 2.3 2.0 2.4 0.1 16.2 0.0 0.0 61 0 61 2021 9.1 0.2 27.2 2.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 23.1 0.0 0.0 66 4.5 71 2022 9.8 0.2 29.3 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 24.9 0.0 0.0 71 0 71 2023 9.4 0.2 27.9 2.2 1.9 2.4 0.1 31.6 0.0 0.0 76 4.5 80 2024 10.1 0.2 30.2 2.4 2.1 2.5 0.1 34.2 0.0 0.0 82 0 82 2025 9.9 0.2 29.5 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 41.9 0.0 0.0 89 4.5 93 2026 9.8 0.2 29.1 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 49.5 0.0 0.0 96 4.5 100 2027 9.7 0.2 29.0 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 57.6 0.0 0.0 104 4.5 108 2028 10.6 0.2 31.7 2.5 2.2 2.7 0.2 62.9 0.0 0.0 113 0 113
A-35
Table A-34 Base Case Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,588 39 111 888 27 12 58 28 0 3,020 2012 74 223 15 1,637 45 133 912 30 15 65 32 0 3,182 2013 76 234 16 1,729 47 151 983 32 16 69 35 0 3,389 2014 81 252 17 1,834 52 175 987 34 17 74 39 0 3,564 2015 86 268 19 1,827 56 199 987 37 19 79 43 0 3,620 2016 90 279 19 1,907 58 222 971 38 20 81 47 0 3,732 2017 92 289 20 1,983 61 245 1,015 39 20 84 50 0 3,900 2018 95 299 21 1,972 65 272 999 40 21 87 53 0 3,924 2019 99 311 21 2,061 68 301 1,046 42 22 90 57 0 4,118 2020 102 319 21 2,034 72 333 1,020 43 23 93 61 0 4,122 2021 106 331 22 2,092 76 352 1,018 45 24 96 66 0 4,228 2022 110 343 23 2,176 80 374 991 46 25 100 71 0 4,338 2023 112 350 23 2,175 84 391 1,029 47 26 103 76 0 4,416 2024 117 364 24 2,304 88 416 960 49 27 107 82 0 4,539 2025 122 379 25 2,361 94 442 1,005 51 29 111 89 0 4,708 2026 126 392 26 2,424 99 469 942 53 30 116 96 0 4,772 2027 131 407 27 2,561 106 499 985 56 32 121 104 0 5,027 2028 138 429 28 2,647 114 535 1,003 58 34 127 113 0 5,226
Table A-35 Base Case Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 113 0 10 8 0 2 0 0 0 151 2012 5 14 2 428 0 10 272 2 0 0 0 0 732 2013 5 7 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 132 2015 0 0 0 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 517 2016 0 0 0 0 5 10 220 0 0 10 0 0 244 2017 0 0 0 23 0 10 0 0 2 0 5 0 39 2018 0 0 0 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 517 2019 0 0 0 0 5 19 0 0 0 0 5 0 28 2020 5 7 2 285 0 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 531 2021 0 0 0 0 0 10 220 0 2 10 5 0 246 2022 0 7 0 23 5 10 220 2 0 0 0 0 266 2023 5 7 0 285 0 19 0 0 0 0 5 0 320 2024 0 7 0 0 5 10 440 0 2 0 0 0 464 2025 0 0 0 285 0 19 0 2 0 10 5 0 321 2026 5 10 2 285 5 10 440 0 0 0 5 0 760 2027 0 10 0 0 0 19 0 2 2 0 5 0 38 2028 0 0 0 285 5 19 220 0 0 0 0 0 529 Salvage Value 13 45 4 2,040 21 139 2,160 9 7 19 23 0 4,480
A-36
A.2
FUEL SCENARIO
Tables A-36 to A-59 present system analysis results for the Fuel Scenario. As for the Base Case, for each country (or island) results are presented in three tables: capacity balance, energy balance, and cost summary tables. Tables A-60 and A-61 present total system production and investment cost results. The Investment Cost Summary table also includes the salvage value for all investments at the end of the planning period. A.2.1 Antigua and Barbuda
Tables A-36 to A-38 present system analysis results for Antigua and Barbuda. For the Fuel Scenario, and other development cases, assumed committed system additions are six 5 MW Casada Gardens units during 2011-2013. Those unit additions would satisfy reserve margin requirements until 2019. During 2020-2028 the system will require additional generation units. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need another 30 MW (3 x 10 MW units) to meet the required capacity. A.2.2 Barbados
Tables A-39 to A-41 present system analysis results for Barbados. 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 will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the gas pipeline. A.2.3 Dominica
Dominica does not have a potentially less expensive fossil fuel option, only a renewable option which will be analyzed in another Scenario. The same results as in the Base Case Scenario apply for Dominica in the Fuel Scenario and are not duplicated here. A.2.4 Dominican Republic
Tables A-42 to A-44 present system analysis results for Dominican Republic for the Fuel Scenario. During the first years, as in the Base Case, we assumed buildup of the already committed hydro and wind resources. Starting in 2012 Dominican Republic will require additional generating 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. Results of the analysis show that by 2028 the system will need another 2,400 MW (8 x 300 MW coal units) and 100 MW of GT units.
A.2.5
Grenada
Tables A-45 to A-47 present system analysis results for Grenada. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need an additional 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. A.2.6 Haiti
Tables A-48 to A-50 present system analysis results for Haiti. For the Fuel Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference is that in this scenario all new units will be using natural gas as a fuel. The assumption is that natural gas will be supplied starting in 2014 from a new LNG terminal. A.2.7 Jamaica
Tables A-51 to A-53 present Fuel Scenario system analysis results for Jamaica. Until 2014 we assumed the same buildup of already planned resources as in the Base Case. 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. 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. 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. A.2.8 St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Kitts and Nevis does not have an alternative, potentially less expensive, fossil fuel option, only renewable option which will be analyzed in other scenario. The same results as in the Base Case Scenario apply for St. Kitts and Nevis in the Fuel Scenario and are not duplicated here. A.2.9 St. Lucia
Tables A-54 to A-56 present system analysis results for St. Lucia. 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 will be using natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas will be supplied through the gas pipeline. A.2.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Tables A-57 to A-59 present system analysis results for St. Vincent and Grenadines. St. Vincent and Grenadines will again require new capacity addition starting in 2017. For the Fuel Scenario, new unit additions are assumed to be 10 MW CFB units using imported coal. By 2028 the system will need another 70 MW (7 x 10 MW units) to cover projected load growth. A.2.11 Total System Costs Tables A-60 to A-61 present total system production and investment cost for the Fuel Scenario. The Fuel Scenario assumes no transmission interconnection among islands and thus shows no fuel savings associated for energy exports or interconnection costs.
Table A-36 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 73 17 0 0 0 0 90 17 66%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 77 13 0 0 0 0 90 13 58%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 81 9 10 0 0 0 100 19 67%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 85 5 20 0 0 0 110 25 75%
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 88 -10 30 0 0 0 107 20
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 90 -13 30 0 0 0 107 17
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 93 -16 30 0 0 0 107 14
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 96 -19 30 0 0 0 107 11
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 99 -21 30 0 0 0 107 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 102 -24 30 0 0 0 107 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 104 -27 30 0 0 0 107 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 108 -31 30 10 0 0 117 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 111 -34 30 10 0 0 117 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 114 -37 30 10 0 0 117 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 118 -40 30 20 0 0 127 10
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 121 -44 30 20 0 0 127 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 125 -47 30 20 0 0 127 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 128 -51 30 30 0 0 137 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 132 -55 30 30 0 0 137 5
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 136 -59 30 30 0 0 137 1
65% 60.5% 55.8% 51.2% 46.8% 42.6% 38.5% 46.9% 42.6% 38.5% 45.9% 41.8% 37.8% 44.4% 40.3% 36.3%
A-39
Table A-37 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-38 Antigua and Barbuda Fuel Scenario Cost Summary

Year 2009 Fuel and O&M Costs APC (Pant) 7.8 APC Blk Pine 14.4 Baker 2.1 APC Jt Vent 9.3 Victor 4.2 WIOC 0.0 Aggreko Rental 6.8 Barbuda 3.9 Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0 48 2010 8.0 14.7 2.1 9.4 4.3 0.0 7.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0 49 2011 7.6 14.0 2.0 9.0 4.1 0.0 6.6 3.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 4.5 57 2012 9.7 17.9 2.6 11.5 5.2 0.0 8.5 4.8 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 74 4.5 78 2013 10.2 18.8 2.7 12.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 76 4.5 80 2014 11.0 20.2 2.9 13.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81 0 81 2015 11.6 21.4 3.1 13.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 86 0 86 2016 12.1 22.2 3.2 14.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90 0 90 2017 12.4 22.9 3.3 14.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 92 0 92 2018 12.8 23.6 3.4 15.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95 0 95 2019 13.3 24.5 3.5 15.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 99 0 99 2020 12.1 22.2 3.2 14.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 25.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 98 25.5 124 2021 12.4 22.9 3.3 14.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 101 0 101 2022 12.8 23.6 3.4 15.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 26.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 104 0 104 2023 11.6 21.3 3.1 13.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 24.3 16.3 0.0 0.0 102 25.5 128 2024 11.9 22.0 3.2 14.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 25.1 16.8 0.0 0.0 106 0 106 2025 12.3 22.6 3.3 14.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 25.8 17.3 0.0 0.0 109 0 109 2026 13.2 22.1 3.5 14.3 6.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 25.1 19.6 0.0 0.0 111 25.5 137 2027 13.7 22.9 3.7 14.8 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 26.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 115 0 115 2028 14.4 23.8 3.8 15.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 27.2 20.2 0.0 0.0 119 0 119
A-40
Table A-39 Barbados Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

25 13 13 61 40 86 238 221 18 0 0 0 0 238 18 40%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 228 10 0 0 0 0 238 10 36%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 236 2 32 0 0 0 270 34 49%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 245 -6 64 0 0 0 302 58 61%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 253 -15 80 0 0 0 318 65
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 262 -23 80 0 0 0 318 57
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 271 -33 80 0 0 0 318 47
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 280 -42 80 0 0 0 318 38
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 290 -52 80 0 0 0 318 28
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 300 -62 80 0 0 0 318 18
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 311 -72 80 0 0 0 318 8
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 322 -83 96 0 0 0 334 13
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 333 -94 96 0 0 0 334 2
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 344 -106 112 0 0 0 350 6
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 356 -118 128 0 0 0 366 10
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 369 -130 144 0 0 0 382 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 382 -143 144 0 0 0 382 1
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 395 -157 144 20 0 0 402 7
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 409 -170 144 40 0 0 422 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 423 -185 144 40 0 0 422 -1
64% 58.1% 52.8% 47.6% 42.6% 37.8% 33.2% 35.2% 30.6% 32.3% 33.6% 34.8% 30.2% 32.4% 34.3% 29.8%
A-41
Table A-40 Barbados Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-41 Barbados Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Trent 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 16.4 8.7 8.7 40.1 26.3 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 0 163 2010 18.9 10.0 10.0 46.1 30.2 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 188 0 188 2011 18.0 9.5 9.5 43.8 28.7 68.7 23.6 0.0 0.0 202 14.4 216 2012 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 46.7 0.0 0.0 223 14.4 237 2013 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 58.4 0.0 0.0 234 7.2 242 2014 7.8 4.1 4.1 19.1 12.5 28.9 25.9 0.0 0.0 102 0 102 2015 8.1 4.3 4.3 19.7 12.9 29.9 26.7 0.0 0.0 106 0 106 2016 8.4 4.4 4.4 20.4 13.4 31.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 110 0 110 2017 8.7 4.6 4.6 21.2 13.9 32.2 28.7 0.0 0.0 114 0 114 2018 9.1 4.8 4.8 22.1 14.5 33.7 29.9 0.0 0.0 119 0 119 2019 9.4 5.0 5.0 22.9 15.1 35.1 31.1 0.0 0.0 124 0 124 2020 9.0 4.7 4.7 21.9 14.4 33.4 35.6 0.0 0.0 124 7.2 131 2021 9.0 4.8 4.8 22.0 14.4 33.6 35.8 0.0 0.0 124 0 124 2022 8.8 4.7 4.7 21.5 14.1 32.9 40.9 0.0 0.0 128 7.2 135 2023 8.7 4.6 4.6 21.1 13.8 32.2 45.8 0.0 0.0 131 7.2 138 2024 8.8 4.6 4.6 21.4 14.0 32.6 52.1 0.0 0.0 138 7.2 145 2025 9.2 4.9 4.9 22.5 14.8 34.5 55.0 0.0 0.0 146 0 146 2026 9.1 4.8 4.8 22.3 14.6 34.1 54.4 7.8 0.0 152 9.6 162 2027 9.1 4.8 4.8 22.1 14.5 33.8 54.0 15.6 0.0 159 9.6 168 2028 9.5 5.0 5.0 23.2 15.2 35.5 56.5 16.3 0.0 166 0 166
A-42
Table A-42 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW)
Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Total Existing (MW) 290 128 101 118 35 0 50 72 33 28 39 100 46 11 100 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 12 387 85 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
Inputs
2009
2,353
2010
2,447
2011
2,544
2012
2,640
2013
2,727
2014
2,803
2015
2,896
2016
2,992
2017
3,091
2018
3,194
2019
3,300
2020
3,409
2021
3,522
2022
3,638
2023
3,758
2024
3,882
2025
4,010
2026
4,143
2027
4,280
2028
4,421
Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW)
2,941
-58
3,059
-176
3,180
-297
3,300
-417
3,409
-526
3,504
-621
3,620
-737
3,740
-857
3,864
-981
3,993
4,125
4,261
4,402
4,547
4,698
4,853
5,013
5,179
5,350
5,526
-1,110 -1,242 -1,378 -1,519 -1,664 -1,815 -1,970 -2,130 -2,296 -2,467 -2,643
A-43
New Capacity (MW)

Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 300 305 305 50 50 2 50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 17 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 0 0 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 0 50 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 305 50 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 305 50 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 50 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 50 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 300 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 300 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 600 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 900 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 900 610 610 100 100 0 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 1,200 610 610 100 100 0
Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%)
3,033
92 29%
3,137
78 28%
3,182
2 25%
3,544
244 34%
3,544
135 30%
3,544
40
3,849
229
3,849
109
3,899
35
4,204
211
4,204
79
4,509
248
4,509
107
4,559
12
4,859
161
4,859
6
5,159
146
5,459
280
5,459
109
5,759
233
26.4% 32.9% 28.6% 26.1% 31.6% 27.4% 32.3% 28.0% 25.3% 29.3% 25.2% 28.6% 31.8% 27.6% 30.3%
A-44
Table A-43 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Inputs 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745
1709 1004 706 865 73 0 362 267 123 103 146 237 302 487 1057 515 523 425 75 226 202 369 516 202 116 75 129 1255 276
1476 820 583 1013 164 0 410 284 138 116 163 465 252 363 1257 771 401 328 62 188 161 275 377 157 123 118 144 1255 276
1562 866 614 1044 171 0 428 296 144 121 170 483 265 370 1283 795 410 335 64 193 165 281 383 161 128 122 150 1255 276
1220 653 465 864 160 0 397 271 133 112 158 448 202 314 1097 712 353 289 56 169 144 240 326 139 118 110 139 1255 276
1285 682 486 892 166 0 415 283 140 117 165 465 211 325 1133 737 366 300 58 176 149 249 337 144 123 114 145 1255 276
1340 707 504 915 173 0 431 294 145 121 171 482 218 335 1165 761 377 309 60 181 154 256 347 149 127 118 150 1255 276
1185 625 445 803 153 0 381 259 128 107 151 426 193 294 1024 672 331 272 53 160 135 225 305 131 113 104 133 1255 276
1236 650 463 836 159 0 396 270 133 111 158 443 201 306 1065 699 345 282 55 166 141 234 317 136 117 108 138 1255 276
1259 664 473 856 164 0 410 279 138 115 163 458 205 315 1096 720 355 291 56 171 145 241 326 140 121 112 143 1255 276
1128 597 426 775 151 0 376 256 126 106 149 420 185 287 1000 659 324 266 52 156 132 220 298 128 111 102 131 1255 276
1161 622 443 802 157 0 391 266 132 110 156 438 192 298 1038 686 337 276 54 163 138 228 309 133 115 106 136 1255 276
1071 572 407 736 145 0 360 244 121 101 143 404 177 273 955 633 309 253 49 149 126 210 284 122 106 98 125 1255 276
1130 594 423 765 151 0 374 254 126 105 149 420 183 283 990 656 321 263 51 155 131 217 294 127 110 102 130 1255 276
1164 610 434 786 155 0 384 261 129 108 153 431 188 291 1017 674 329 270 53 159 135 223 302 130 113 105 134 1255 276
1081 568 404 736 147 0 364 247 123 102 145 409 175 275 959 638 311 255 50 150 127 211 285 123 107 99 127 1255 276
1098 591 421 759 153 0 378 257 127 107 150 426 182 285 997 664 323 265 52 156 132 219 295 127 112 103 132 1255 276
1015 559 397 711 145 0 358 243 120 101 142 403 172 268 939 627 304 249 49 147 124 206 278 120 105 97 125 1255 276
950 532 378 672 139 0 340 231 115 96 135 384 164 255 893 597 289 237 46 140 118 196 264 114 100 93 119 1255 276
965 553 393 691 144 0 354 240 119 100 141 399 170 263 924 619 299 245 48 145 122 202 273 118 104 96 123 1255 276
903 530 376 654 139 0 339 230 114 95 135 384 163 251 882 594 285 234 46 138 117 193 260 113 100 92 118 1255 276
A-45
Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Total Generation (GWh)
143 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12638
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 0 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 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 1727 1799 3406 4870 5070 6491 0 0 2013 2105 2187 3870 4027 4109 3692 3850 3543 3678 3778 3511 3658 3463 3301 3437 3299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 1925 3543 3678 3778 3511 3658 3463 3301 3437 3299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 178 184 169 177 364 340 347 323 304 311 292 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13142 13663 14179 14646 15054 15554 16070 16601 17154 17724 18309 18914 19539 20184 20851 21539 22251 22986 23745
A-46
Table A-44 Dominican Republic Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
A-47
Table A-45 Grenada Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

17 16 16 49 42 7 0 0 0 49 7 57%
17 16 16 49 44 4 0 0 0 49 4 49%
17 16 16 49 46 2 0 0 0 49 2 41%
17 16 16 49 49 0 0 0 0 49 0 34%
17 16 16 49 52 -3 0 10 0 59 7
17 16 16 49 54 -6 0 10 0 59 4
17 16 16 49 57 -9 0 10 0 59 1
17 16 16 49 60 -12 0 20 0 69 8
17 16 16 49 64 -15 0 20 0 69 5
17 16 16 49 67 -18 0 20 0 69 2
17 16 16 49 71 -22 0 30 0 79 8
17 16 16 49 74 -26 0 30 0 79 4
17 16 16 49 78 -30 0 30 0 79 0
17 16 16 49 83 -34 0 40 0 89 6
17 16 16 49 87 -39 0 40 0 89 1
17 16 16 49 92 -43 0 50 0 99 7
17 16 16 49 97 -48 0 50 0 99 2
17 16 16 49 102 -53 0 60 0 109 7
17 16 16 49 107 -59 0 60 0 109 1
17 16 16 49 113 -65 0 70 0 119 5
53% 45.4% 37.9% 53.3% 45.5% 38.0% 50.1% 42.4% 35.2% 44.6% 37.2% 45.0% 37.6% 43.8% 36.4% 41.4%
A-48
Table A-46 Grenada Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 209 2011 220 2012 232 2013 244 2014 257 2015 270 2016 285 2017 300 2018 316 2019 333 2020 350 2021 369 2022 389 2023 409 2024 431 2025 454 2026 478 2027 504 2028 530
71 69 69 0 0 0 209
75 73 73 0 0 0 220
79 76 76 0 0 0 232
59 57 57 0 70 0 244
68 66 66 0 56 0 257
71 68 68 0 63 0 270
59 57 57 0 111 0 285
61 59 59 0 120 0 300
63 61 61 0 130 0 316
54 52 52 0 174 0 333
56 54 54 0 187 0 350
58 56 56 0 200 0 369
50 49 49 0 241 0 389
52 50 50 0 256 0 409
46 45 45 0 296 0 431
47 46 46 0 315 0 454
43 41 41 0 353 0 478
43 42 42 0 376 0 504
56 55 55 0 365 0 530
Table A-47 Grenada Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 10.9 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2010 11.8 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2011 13.3 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2012 15.2 14.8 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 0 45 2013 11.8 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 35 25.5 61 2014 14.2 13.8 13.8 0.0 9.2 0.0 51 0 51 2015 15.1 14.7 14.7 0.0 9.8 0.0 54 0 54 2016 12.8 12.4 12.4 0.0 16.7 0.0 54 25.5 80 2017 13.3 12.9 12.9 0.0 17.2 0.0 56 0 56 2018 13.8 13.4 13.4 0.0 17.9 0.0 59 0 59 2019 11.9 11.6 11.6 0.0 23.2 0.0 58 25.5 84 2020 12.3 11.9 11.9 0.0 24.0 0.0 60 0 60 2021 12.8 12.4 12.4 0.0 24.9 0.0 62 0 62 2022 11.3 11.0 11.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 63 25.5 88 2023 11.7 11.3 11.3 0.0 30.4 0.0 65 0 65 2024 10.5 10.2 10.2 0.0 34.2 0.0 65 25.5 91 2025 10.9 10.6 10.6 0.0 35.4 0.0 67 0 67 2026 10.0 9.7 9.7 0.0 38.9 0.0 68 25.5 94 2027 10.3 10.0 10.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 70 0 70 2028 13.5 13.1 13.1 0.0 38.4 0.0 78 25.5 103
A-49
Table A-48 Haiti Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 308 -153 30 30 100 0 315 7 33%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 324 -169 30 30 120 0 335 11 35%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 340 -185 30 30 140 0 355 15 36%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 357 -202 30 30 160 0 375 18
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 375 -220 30 30 160 0 375 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 393 -238 30 30 180 0 395 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 413 -258 30 30 200 0 415 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 434 -279 30 30 220 0 435 1
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 455 -300 30 30 240 0 455 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 478 -323 30 30 280 0 495 17
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 502 -347 30 30 300 0 515 13
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 527 -372 30 30 320 0 535 8
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 553 -398 30 30 340 0 555 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 581 -426 30 30 380 0 595 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 610 -455 30 30 400 0 615 5
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 641 -486 30 30 440 0 655 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 673 -518 30 30 460 0 675 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 706 -551 30 30 500 0 715 9
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 742 -587 30 30 540 0 755 13
37% 30.2% 30.6% 30.6% 30.4% 29.9% 34.6% 33.4% 32.0% 30.4% 33.1% 31.0% 32.9% 30.5% 31.6% 32.3%
A-50
Table A-49 Haiti Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 660 2010 726 2011 799 2012 878 2013 966 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782
67 48 71 30 15 54 11 75 79 210 0 660
69 49 71 31 15 56 11 77 79 269 0 726
71 50 71 32 16 58 11 79 79 333 0 799
74 52 71 33 17 60 11 82 79 401 0 878
76 54 71 35 17 62 11 85 79 477 0 966
67 47 71 30 15 55 11 74 79 614 0 1063
66 46 71 30 15 54 11 73 79 725 0 1169
82 58 71 47 24 85 11 81 79 750 0 1286
85 60 71 49 25 88 11 84 79 864 0 1415
88 62 71 51 26 92 11 87 79 989 0 1556
87 62 71 51 25 91 11 86 79 1149 0 1712
91 64 71 53 27 96 11 89 79 1303 0 1883
90 64 71 53 27 95 11 88 79 1400 0 1977
90 64 71 53 27 96 11 88 79 1499 0 2076
87 61 71 51 26 92 11 84 79 1618 0 2180
88 62 71 52 26 93 11 85 79 1722 0 2289
85 60 71 50 25 91 11 83 79 1847 0 2403
87 61 71 51 26 92 11 84 79 1962 0 2523
85 60 71 50 25 91 11 83 79 2096 0 2650
83 59 71 49 25 89 11 81 79 2235 0 2782
Table A-50 Haiti Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 11.4 8.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 11.9 0.4 10.7 1.2 28.5 0.0 82 38.4 120 2010 12.0 8.5 0.0 6.9 3.5 12.5 0.4 11.2 1.2 37.4 0.0 94 9.6 103 2011 13.1 9.3 0.0 7.6 3.8 13.6 0.4 12.3 1.2 49.3 0.0 111 9.6 120 2012 14.7 10.4 0.0 8.5 4.2 15.3 0.4 13.8 1.2 64.6 0.0 133 9.6 143 2013 15.7 11.1 0.0 9.0 4.5 16.2 0.4 14.7 1.2 78.5 0.0 151 9.6 161 2014 14.5 10.2 0.0 8.3 4.2 15.0 0.4 13.6 1.2 72.4 0.0 140 0 140 2015 14.6 10.3 0.0 8.4 4.2 15.2 0.4 13.7 1.2 82.5 0.0 151 9.6 160 2016 18.1 12.7 0.0 12.9 6.5 23.3 0.4 15.3 1.2 83.5 0.0 174 9.6 184 2017 18.7 13.2 0.0 13.5 6.7 24.2 0.4 15.8 1.2 93.9 0.0 188 9.6 197 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
19.5 19.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 19.6 20.1 19.8 20.3 20.2 20.2 13.8 13.7 14.3 14.3 14.4 13.8 14.2 14.0 14.3 14.2 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 14.1 14.8 14.8 15.0 14.4 14.8 14.6 14.9 14.8 14.9 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.5 25.4 25.3 26.6 26.7 27.0 26.0 26.6 26.2 26.8 26.7 26.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 16.5 16.3 17.0 16.9 17.0 16.4 16.7 16.5 16.9 16.8 16.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 105.6 121.0 132.6 137.7 145.6 155.9 167.6 181.5 193.8 208.8 224.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 203 219 234 240 248 255 269 281 296 311 326 9.6 213 19.2 238 9.6 244 9.6 249 9.6 258 19.2 274 9.6 279 19.2 301 9.6 306 19.2 330 19.2 345
A-51
Table A-51 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 850 -68 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 1 25%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 884 -103 68 0 0 85 6 0 0 0 0 0 935 51 32%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 921 -139 68 0 0 85 12 0 0 0 0 0 935 15 27%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 959 -177 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 0
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 998 -217 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 0
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
1,039 1,083 1,130 1,179 1,229 1,282 1,338 1,396 1,456 1,518 1,583 1,652 1,724 1,799 1,877 -286 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 0 0 -330 68 120 60 85 18 0 100 0 0 0 -377 68 120 60 85 18 0 200 0 0 0 -426 68 120 60 85 18 0 200 0 0 0 -476 68 120 60 85 18 0 300 0 0 0 -529 68 120 60 85 18 0 300 0 0 0 -620 68 120 60 85 18 0 400 0 0 0 -677 68 120 60 85 18 0 500 0 0 0 -795 68 120 60 85 18 0 600 0 0 0 -857 68 120 60 85 18 0 600 0 0 0 -984 68 120 60 85 18 0 800 0 0 0 -1,053 -1,190 -1,265 -1,343 68 120 60 85 18 0 800 0 0 0 68 68 68 120 120 120 60 60 60 85 85 85 18 18 18 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,055 1,055 1,087 1,187 1,287 1,287 1,387 1,387 1,452 1,552 1,595 1,595 1,733 1,733 1,868 1,868 1,968 97 38% 57 47 103 156 108 157 104 114 156 139 77 150 81 144 69 91
32% 30.7% 36.9% 42.3% 36.4% 41.0% 35.2% 35.6% 39.0% 36.9% 31.3% 36.8% 31.1% 35.4% 29.8% 31.0%
A-52
Table A-52 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

A-53
Table A-53 Jamaica Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Wigton Hydro 2009 19.4 38.8 42.0 44.3 44.3 15.2 0.0 22.7 15.2 28.0 28.3 79.6 48.2 32.5 39.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2010 2011 2012 31.7 63.1 68.4 72.1 72.1 35.1 0.0 24.1 33.7 80.5 55.4 87.6 45.2 30.5 36.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 42.9 42.3 0.0 88.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 912 271.5 1,184 2013 34.6 69.0 74.8 78.8 78.8 37.6 0.0 26.0 36.1 86.2 59.3 93.4 48.8 32.9 38.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 45.6 44.5 0.0 94.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 983 0 983 2014 0.0 78.9 85.5 90.1 90.1 43.8 0.0 16.9 17.5 40.2 29.4 54.9 32.9 22.1 26.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 2015 0.0 80.5 87.3 92.0 92.0 45.1 0.0 15.2 15.2 34.7 25.7 49.3 29.7 20.0 23.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 2016 0.0 79.4 86.1 90.7 90.7 44.5 0.0 14.1 13.7 31.3 23.4 45.7 27.8 18.7 22.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2017 0.0 83.8 90.8 95.7 95.7 46.9 0.0 14.2 13.8 31.2 23.4 46.4 28.1 19.0 22.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2018 0.0 82.0 89.0 93.7 93.7 46.0 0.0 13.6 13.1 29.6 22.3 44.4 27.0 18.2 21.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 2019 0.0 86.8 94.1 99.1 99.1 48.8 0.0 13.9 13.3 30.2 22.8 45.5 27.6 18.6 22.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2020 0.0 85.3 92.4 97.4 97.4 48.6 0.0 0.0 12.7 28.5 21.7 43.9 26.8 18.1 21.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2021 0.0 84.6 91.8 96.7 96.7 48.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 26.3 20.2 41.5 25.5 17.2 20.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
25.2 28.3 50.3 56.4 54.5 61.2 57.4 64.4 57.4 64.4 19.9 22.3 0.0 0.0 29.3 32.8 19.9 22.3 36.6 41.1 36.9 41.6 103.8 116.7 62.2 69.7 41.9 47.0 50.7 56.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 82.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 791 96.75 887 67.4 0.0 0.0 92.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 888 7.5 895
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 97.0 101.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.1 106.5 108.1 115.0 118.6 127.5 130.4 102.1 106.5 108.1 115.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 53.2 54.5 58.3 60.6 65.0 67.4 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 11.9 12.4 12.5 13.3 13.6 14.5 14.6 26.8 27.7 28.2 30.2 31.0 33.1 33.5 20.5 21.2 21.3 22.7 23.1 24.6 24.8 42.0 43.4 42.8 45.2 44.9 47.4 47.5 25.7 26.5 26.1 27.5 27.3 28.6 28.7 17.3 17.9 17.6 18.5 18.4 19.3 19.3 20.7 21.4 21.0 22.1 21.9 23.0 23.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
47.9 48.0 47.0 49.2 48.1 50.5 50.3 49.4 51.6 53.7 54.2 57.5 58.8 62.6 64.4 39.3 37.0 35.6 36.6 35.5 36.4 35.8 34.7 35.0 36.2 34.8 36.1 35.0 36.3 35.8 20.6 19.4 18.6 19.1 18.5 18.9 18.6 18.0 18.1 18.7 18.0 18.7 18.1 18.7 18.5 105.6 107.6 106.0 111.3 109.1 115.4 114.9 113.4 119.7 124.6 127.1 135.5 140.0 149.9 155.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 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 42.0 78.5 79.7 114.8 117.6 152.1 181.0 219.0 226.4 295.5 310.8 383.6 403.1 443.1 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 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 845 868 877 911 923 964 969 980 964 1,000 973 1,029 998 1,057 1,109 132 977 105 973 105 982 0 911 105 1,028 0 964 105 105 105 0 210 0 210 0 105
1,074 1,085 1,069 1,000 1,183 1,029 1,208 1,057 1,214
A-54
Table A-54 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance

12 6 37 21 0.1 76 76 0 0 0 0 76 0
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 79 -2 0 20 0 96 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 82 -5 0 20 0 96 15
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 85 -9 0 20 0 96 11
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 88 -12 0 20 0 96 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 91 -15 0 20 0 96 5
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 95 -19 0 20 0 96 1
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 98 -22 0 40 0 116 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 102 -26 0 40 0 116 14
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 106 -30 0 40 0 116 10
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 110 -34 0 40 0 116 6
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 114 -38 0 40 0 116 2
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 119 -42 0 60 0 136 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 123 -47 0 60 0 136 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 128 -52 0 60 0 136 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 133 -56 0 60 0 136 4
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 138 -62 0 80 0 156 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 143 -67 0 80 0 156 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 148 -72 0 80 0 156 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 154 -78 0 80 0 156 2
35.7% 65.0% 59.0% 53.2% 47.6% 42.2% 36.9% 59.4% 53.5% 47.9% 42.5% 37.3% 55.0% 49.3% 43.9% 38.6% 53.1% 47.5% 42.1% 36.9%
A-55
Table A-55 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Energy Balance

53 28 169 94 0.1 0 0 0 345
42 22 133 74 0.1 0 85 0 356
43 23 137 76 0.1 0 87 0 367
45 23 142 78 0.1 0 90 0 378
46 24 146 81 0.1 0 93 0 390
47 25 150 83 0.1 0 97 0 402
49 26 155 86 0.1 0 100 0 415
41 21 129 71 0.1 0 166 0 428
42 22 133 74 0.1 0 171 0 442
43 23 137 76 0.1 0 176 0 455
45 23 141 78 0.1 0 182 0 470
46 24 146 81 0.1 0 187 0 484
40 21 126 70 0.1 0 243 0 500
41 22 130 72 0.1 0 251 0 515
42 22 134 74 0.1 0 258 0 531
44 23 138 77 0.1 0 266 0 548
39 20 123 68 0.1 0 315 0 565
40 21 127 70 0.1 0 325 0 583
41 22 131 72 0.1 0 335 0 601
43 22 135 75 0.1 0 346 0 620
Table A-56 St. Lucia Fuel Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs 2009 2010 6.5 3.4 20.3 11.2 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 53 9.6 62 2011 7.2 3.8 22.3 12.4 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 58 0 58 2012 8.1 4.3 25.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 65 0 65 2013 8.6 4.5 26.6 14.7 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 69 0 69 2014 4.9 2.5 15.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 39 0 39 2015 5.0 2.6 15.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 40 0 40 2016 4.2 2.2 13.1 7.3 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 42 9.6 51 2017 4.4 2.3 13.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 43 0 43 2018 4.5 2.4 14.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 44 0 44 2019 4.7 2.5 14.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 46 0 46 2020 4.7 2.5 14.7 8.1 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 46 0 46 2021 4.1 2.1 12.6 7.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 47 9.6 57 2022 4.2 2.2 13.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 48 0 48 2023 4.3 2.3 13.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 50 0 50 2024 4.5 2.4 14.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 52 0 52 2025 4.1 2.2 12.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 55 9.6 64 2026 4.3 2.3 13.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 57 0 57 2027 4.5 2.4 13.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 60 0 60 2028 4.7 2.5 14.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 62 0 62
A-56
Table A-57 St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Scenario Capacity Balance
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 36 22 0 0 0 58 22
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 38 20 0 0 0 58 20
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 41 17 0 0 0 58 17
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 44 14 0 0 0 58 14
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 47 11 0 0 0 58 11
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 50 8 0 0 0 58 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 53 5 0 0 0 58 5
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 57 1 0 0 0 58 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 61 -3 0 10 0 68 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 65 -7 0 10 0 68 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 70 -12 0 20 0 78 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 75 -17 0 20 0 78 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 80 -22 0 30 0 88 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 85 -27 0 30 0 88 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 91 -33 0 40 0 98 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 98 -39 0 40 0 98 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 104 -46 0 50 0 108 4
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 111 -53 0 60 0 118 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 119 -61 0 70 0 128 9
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 127 -69 0 70 0 128 1
118.8% 104.7% 91.5% 79.1% 67.5% 56.7% 46.6% 37.1% 50.3% 40.6% 50.9% 41.1% 48.9% 39.3% 45.1% 35.7% 39.9% 43.0% 45.1% 35.7%
A-57
Table A-58 St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Scenario Energy Balance
31 7 98 7 6 7 0 0 0 0 156
33 7 105 7 6 8 0 0 0 0 167
36 7 113 8 7 8 0 0 0 0 178
38 7 121 8 7 9 0 0 0 0 191
41 7 129 9 8 10 0 0 0 0 204
44 7 139 10 8 10 1 0 0 0 218
47 7 149 10 9 11 1 0 0 0 233
50 7 159 11 9 12 1 0 0 0 249
43 7 137 10 8 10 1 0 51 0 266
46 7 146 10 9 11 1 0 56 0 284
40 7 128 9 8 10 0 0 103 0 304
43 7 135 9 8 10 0 0 113 0 325
38 7 120 8 7 9 0 0 158 0 348
40 7 127 9 7 10 0 0 172 0 372
37 7 116 8 7 9 0 0 215 0 397
38 7 121 8 7 9 0 0 234 0 425
35 7 111 8 7 8 0 0 279 0 454
33 7 103 7 6 8 0 0 322 0 485
30 7 96 7 6 7 0 0 366 0 519
41 7 123 10 8 10 1 0 356 0 555
Table A-59 St. Vincent and Grenadines Case Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 4.7 0.2 14.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2010 5.2 0.2 15.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 5.9 0.2 17.6 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0 28 2012 6.8 0.2 20.4 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2013 7.5 0.2 22.3 1.8 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2014 8.3 0.2 24.8 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2015 9.2 0.2 27.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 43 0 43 2016 9.9 0.2 29.4 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 47 0 47 2017 8.6 0.2 25.6 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.0 7.3 0.0 48 25.5 73 2018 9.1 0.2 27.2 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.0 7.8 0.0 51 0 51 2019 8.1 0.2 24.2 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.0 13.9 0.0 52 25.5 78 2020 8.6 0.2 25.6 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.0 14.6 0.0 55 0 55 2021 7.8 0.2 23.1 1.8 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.0 19.8 0.0 56 25.5 82 2022 8.2 0.2 24.5 1.9 1.7 2.1 0.1 0.0 21.0 0.0 60 0 60 2023 7.5 0.2 22.4 1.8 1.6 1.9 0.1 0.0 25.6 0.0 61 25.5 87 2024 7.9 0.2 23.7 1.9 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.0 27.1 0.0 65 0 65 2025 7.4 0.2 22.1 1.7 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 31.5 0.0 66 25.5 92 2026 7.0 0.2 20.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.1 0.0 35.6 0.0 69 25.5 94 2027 6.6 0.2 19.8 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 39.5 0.0 71 25.5 96 2028 9.0 0.2 25.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 37.5 0.0 79 0 79
A-58
Table A-60 Fuel Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,588 39 111 888 27 12 58 28 0 3,020 2012 74 223 15 1,587 45 133 912 30 15 65 32 0 3,132 2013 76 234 16 1,683 35 151 983 32 16 69 35 0 3,332 2014 81 102 17 1,791 51 140 845 34 17 39 39 0 3,159 2015 86 106 19 1,717 54 151 868 37 19 40 43 0 3,139 2016 90 110 19 1,794 54 174 877 38 20 42 47 0 3,264 2017 92 114 20 1,867 56 188 911 39 20 43 48 0 3,398 2018 95 119 21 1,803 59 203 923 40 21 44 51 0 3,379 2019 99 124 21 1,875 58 219 964 42 22 46 52 0 3,521 2020 98 124 21 1,807 60 234 969 43 23 46 55 0 3,481 2021 101 124 22 1,876 62 240 980 45 24 47 56 0 3,578 2022 104 128 23 1,956 63 248 964 46 25 48 60 0 3,666 2023 102 131 23 1,923 65 255 1,000 47 26 50 61 0 3,684 2024 106 138 24 2,008 65 269 973 49 27 52 65 0 3,776 2025 109 146 25 1,990 67 281 1,029 51 29 55 66 0 3,849 2026 111 152 26 1,983 68 296 998 53 30 57 69 0 3,843 2027 115 159 27 2,064 70 311 1,057 56 32 60 71 0 4,019 2028 119 166 28 2,065 78 326 1,109 58 34 62 79 0 4,125
Table A-61 Fuel Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 113 0 10 8 0 2 0 0 0 151 2012 5 14 2 753 0 10 272 2 0 0 0 0 1,057 2013 5 7 0 0 26 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 132 2015 0 0 0 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 727 2016 0 0 0 0 26 10 105 0 0 10 0 0 150 2017 0 0 0 23 0 10 0 0 2 0 26 0 60 2018 0 0 0 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 727 2019 0 0 0 0 26 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 70 2020 26 7 2 610 0 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 762 2021 0 0 0 0 0 10 105 0 2 10 26 0 152 2022 0 7 0 23 26 10 105 2 0 0 0 0 172 2023 26 7 0 600 0 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 677 2024 0 7 0 0 26 10 210 0 2 0 0 0 255 2025 0 0 0 600 0 19 0 2 0 10 26 0 657 2026 26 10 2 600 26 10 210 0 0 0 26 0 908 2027 0 10 0 0 0 19 0 2 2 0 26 0 59 2028 0 0 0 600 26 19 105 0 0 0 0 0 750 Salvage Value 66 45 4 3,986 138 139 1,156 9 7 19 146 0 5,715
A-59
A.3
INTERCONNECTION/RENEWABLE SCENARIO
Tables A-62 to A-103 present system analysis results for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. As for all scenarios, for each country (or island) results are presented in three tables: capacity balance, energy balance, and cost summary tables. A.3.1 Antigua and Barbuda
Tables A-62 to A-64 present system analysis results for Antigua and Barbuda. Most assumed new generation units are the same as in the Base Case. The difference is that in this scenario is the addition of 14 MW of new wind units. A.3.2 Barbados
Tables A-65 to A-67 present system analysis results for Barbados. 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. A.3.3 Dominica
Tables A-68 to A-70 present system analysis results for Dominica. The Interconnection/Renewable Scenario assumes the addition of a 20 MW geothermal unit in 2012 to satisfy local needs, and the addition of two 92.5 MW units in 2014 for exports to Martinique and Guadalupe. The energy balance table shows corresponding exports of 1,296 GWh starting in 2014. A.3.4 Dominican Republic
Tables A-71 to A-76 present system analysis results for Dominican Republic for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Preliminary analysis had indicated that the impacts of interconnection and renewable energy generation should be studied separately. In Tables A-71 to A-73 we refer to the Interconnection Scenario because interconnection is assumed without additional renewable energy generation added. The assumed system additions are the same as in the Base Case Scenario, though the timing is slightly different and the reserve margins fall. The impact is relatively small because the Dominican Republics system is large compared to the amounts of exports. Electricity exports to Haiti start at 108 MW (520 GWh) in 2014 and increase to 214 MW (1,029 GWh) by 2028. Tables A-74 to A-76 present again system analysis results for Dominican Republic for what we refer to as the Renewable Scenario because we assume no interconnection, but the addition of 540 MW of new wind units (30 MW each year starting in 2011).. The assumed system additions are otherwise the same as in the Base Case Scenario.
A.3.5
Grenada
Tables A-77 to A-79 present system analysis results for Grenada. For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, most assumed new generation units are the same as in the Base Case. The difference is that in this scenario is the addition of 12 MW of new wind units. A.3.6 Haiti
Preliminary analysis had indicated that the impacts of interconnection and renewable energy generation should be studied separately. In Tables A-80 to A-82 we refer to the Interconnection Scenario because interconnection is assumed without additional renewable resources. For the Interconnection Scenario, assumed system unit additions are the same 20 MW low speed diesel units as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this case is the assumed import of electricity from Dominican Republic starting in 2014. Imports are assumed to reduce the requirement to build new diesel units in Haiti, so only 340 MW of new units will be required by 2028. Another 200 MW of new units will be replaced by imports. Energy imports reduce the need for generation in Haiti as presented in Table A-81, which also shows a reduction for transmission losses. Tables A-83 to A-85 present system analysis results for Haiti for what we call the Renewable Scenario. For the Renewable Scenario, most assumed system unit additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this scenario is the assumed addition of 81 MW of wind generation. A.3.7 Jamaica
Tables A-86 to A-88 present system analysis results for Jamaica for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. For this Scenario, assumed system unit additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this scenario is the assumed addition of 219 MW of wind generation by 2028, with the yearly schedule presented in Table A-86. A.3.8 St. Kitts and Nevis
Tables A-89 to A-91 present system analysis results for St. Kitts for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. This scenario assumes that St. Kitts and Nevis will be interconnected by 2011. Two 20 MW geothermal units at Nevis will provide 30 MW of capacity for St. Kitts and most of the energy requirement. No new generation units will be built on St. Kitts. Tables A-92 to A-94 present corresponding system analysis results for Nevis for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. This 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. Additionally, this scenario assumes two 200 MW geothermal units will be built at Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. A submarine cable connecting Nevis and Puerto Rico is also assumed to be completed by 2014.
A.3.9
St. Lucia
Tables A-95 to A-97 present system analysis results for St. Lucia. For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this scenario is the assumed addition of 18 MW by 2028 of wind generation with the yearly schedule presented in Table A-95. A.3.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Tables A-98 to A-100 present system analysis results for St. Vincent and Grenadines. For the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario, assumed system additions are the same as for the Base Case Scenario. The difference in this scenario is the assumed addition of 14 MW by 2028 of wind generation with the yearly schedule presented in Table A-98. A.3.11 Total System Costs Tables A-101 to A-103 present total system production, investment and interconnection cost for the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The Production Cost Summary table shows fuel savings associated for energy exports to Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Puerto Rico. The Investment Cost Summary and Interconnection Cost Summary tables show yearly costs associated with building assumed interconnections. Renewable Scenario production and investment cost results are those presented for the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and no interconnection is assumed. The interconnection costs shown for the Dominican Republic Haiti interconnection are those used in the preliminary analysis that determined that an interconnection was not economic.
Table A-62 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 73 17 0 0 0 0 90 17 66%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 77 13 0 0 0 0 90 13 58%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 81 9 10 0 0 0 100 19 67%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 85 5 20 0 0 3 110 25 75%
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 88 -10 30 0 0 6 107 20
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 90 -13 30 0 0 9 107 17
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 93 -16 30 0 0 9 107 14
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 96 -19 30 0 0 9 107 11
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 99 -21 30 0 0 9 107 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 102 -24 30 0 0 9 107 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 104 -27 30 0 0 11 107 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 108 -31 30 0 10 11 117 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 111 -34 30 0 10 11 117 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 114 -37 30 0 10 11 117 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 118 -40 30 0 20 12 127 10
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 121 -44 30 0 20 12 127 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 125 -47 30 0 20 12 127 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 128 -51 30 0 30 12 137 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 132 -55 30 0 30 14 137 5
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 136 -59 30 0 30 14 137 1
65% 60.5% 55.8% 51.2% 46.8% 42.6% 38.5% 46.9% 42.6% 38.5% 45.9% 41.8% 37.8% 44.4% 40.3% 36.3%
A-63
Table A-63 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-64 Antigua and Barbuda Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary

Year Fuel and O&M Costs 2009 2010 8.0 14.7 2.1 9.4 4.3 0.0 7.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0 49 2011 7.6 14.0 2.0 9.0 4.1 0.0 6.6 3.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 4.5 57 2012 9.5 17.5 2.5 11.3 5.1 0.0 8.3 4.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 72 8.25 81 2013 9.8 18.1 2.6 11.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 73 8.25 81 2014 10.4 19.1 2.8 12.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 77 3.75 81 2015 11.0 20.2 2.9 13.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.5 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 82 0 82 2016 11.4 21.0 3.0 13.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 85 0 85 2017 11.8 21.7 3.1 14.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 88 0 88 2018 12.2 22.5 3.3 14.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 91 0 91 2019 12.6 23.1 3.3 14.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 94 1.875 95 2020 11.9 21.8 3.2 14.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 24.9 0.0 8.3 0.3 97 4.5 101 2021 12.3 22.6 3.3 14.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 25.8 0.0 8.6 0.3 100 0 100 2022 12.8 23.5 3.4 15.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.3 26.8 0.0 8.9 0.3 104 0 104 2023 12.0 22.1 3.2 14.3 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 25.2 0.0 16.7 0.4 106 6.375 113 2024 12.5 23.0 3.3 14.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.2 0.0 17.5 0.4 111 0 111 2025 13.0 24.0 3.5 15.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 27.3 0.0 18.2 0.4 115 0 115 2026 12.5 23.1 3.3 14.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.4 120 4.5 124 2027 13.0 23.9 3.5 15.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 27.3 0.0 27.2 0.4 124 1.875 126 2028 13.7 25.2 3.6 16.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 28.7 0.0 28.7 0.4 131 0 131
APC (Pant) 7.8 APC Blk Pine 14.4 Baker 2.1 APC Jt Vent 9.3 Victor 4.2 WIOC 0.0 Aggreko Rental 6.8 Barbuda 3.9 Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0 48
A-64
Table A-65 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

25 13 13 61 40 86 238 221 18 0 0 0 0 238 18 40%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 228 10 0 0 0 0 238 10 36%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 236 2 32 0 0 0 270 34 49%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 245 -6 64 0 0 0 302 58 61%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 253 -15 80 0 0 0 318 65
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 262 -23 80 0 0 3 318 57
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 271 -33 80 0 0 6 318 47
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 280 -42 80 0 0 9 318 38
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 290 -52 80 0 0 12 318 28
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 300 -62 80 0 0 15 318 18
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 311 -72 80 0 0 18 318 8
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 322 -83 96 0 0 21 334 13
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 333 -94 96 0 0 24 334 2
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 344 -106 112 0 0 27 350 6
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 356 -118 128 0 0 30 366 10
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 369 -130 144 0 0 33 382 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 382 -143 144 0 0 36 382 1
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 395 -157 144 20 0 39 402 7
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 409 -170 144 40 0 42 422 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 423 -185 144 40 0 45 422 -1
64% 58.1% 52.8% 47.6% 42.6% 37.8% 33.2% 35.2% 30.6% 32.3% 33.6% 34.8% 30.2% 32.4% 34.3% 29.8%
A-65
Table A-66 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-67 Barbados Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Trent 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 16.4 8.7 8.7 40.1 26.3 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 0 163 2010 18.9 10.0 10.0 46.1 30.2 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 188 0 188 2011 18.0 9.5 9.5 43.8 28.7 68.7 23.6 0.0 0.0 202 14.4 216 2012 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 46.7 0.0 0.0 223 14.4 237 2013 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 58.4 0.0 0.0 234 7.2 242 2014 19.0 10.0 10.0 46.3 30.4 72.6 62.4 0.0 0.1 251 3.75 255 2015 20.0 10.6 10.6 48.9 32.1 76.9 65.9 0.0 0.2 265 3.75 269 2016 20.7 10.9 10.9 50.6 33.2 79.6 68.2 0.0 0.3 274 3.75 278 2017 21.3 11.3 11.3 52.0 34.1 81.8 70.1 0.0 0.4 282 3.75 286 2018 22.0 11.6 11.6 53.6 35.1 84.3 72.1 0.0 0.5 291 3.75 295 2019 22.7 12.0 12.0 55.4 36.3 87.2 74.6 0.0 0.6 301 3.75 304 2020 22.1 11.7 11.7 53.9 35.3 84.8 87.1 0.0 0.7 307 10.95 318 2021 22.8 12.1 12.1 55.7 36.6 87.8 90.0 0.0 0.8 318 3.75 322 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
22.5 21.9 21.7 22.6 22.1 21.7 22.9 11.9 11.5 11.5 11.9 11.6 11.5 12.1 11.9 11.5 11.5 11.9 11.6 11.5 12.1 54.8 53.4 53.0 55.1 53.8 53.0 55.8 35.9 35.0 34.7 36.1 35.3 34.8 36.6 86.3 84.0 83.3 86.7 84.7 83.5 87.9 103.3 115.0 128.4 133.5 130.5 128.6 135.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 36.7 38.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 327 333 345 359 370 383 402 10.95 10.95 10.95 338 344 356 3.75 363 13.35 13.35 383 396 3.75 406
A-66
Table A-68 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 15 2010 15 2011 16 2012 16 2013 17 2014 17 185 5 16 21 207 -186 0 20 185 0 226 19 2015 18 185 5 16 21 208 -187 0 20 185 0 226 18 2016 18 185 5 16 21 209 -188 0 20 185 0 226 17 2017 19 185 5 16 21 209 -188 0 20 185 0 226 17 2018 19 185 5 16 21 210 -189 0 20 185 0 226 16 2019 20 185 5 16 21 210 -189 0 20 185 0 226 16 2020 20 185 5 16 21 211 -190 0 20 185 0 226 15 2021 21 185 5 16 21 212 -191 0 20 185 0 226 14 2022 21 185 5 16 21 213 -192 0 20 185 0 226 13 9.6% 2023 22 185 5 16 21 213 -192 0 20 185 0 226 13 9.3% 2024 22 185 5 16 21 214 -193 0 20 185 0 226 12 9.0% 2025 23 185 5 16 21 215 -194 0 20 185 0 226 11 8.7% 2026 24 185 5 16 21 216 -195 0 20 185 0 226 10 8.3% 2027 24 185 5 16 21 216 -195 0 20 185 0 226 10 8.0% 2028 25 185 5 16 21 217 -196 0 20 185 0 226 9 7.7%
5 16 21 20 1 0 0 0 0 21 1 40%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 36%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 32%
5 16 21 22 -1 0 20 0 0 41 19
5 16 21 23 -2 0 20 0 0 41 18
152% 145% 11.8% 11.5% 11.3% 11.0% 10.7% 10.5% 10.2% 9.9%
A-67
Table A-69 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 87 2010 89 2011 91 2012 94 2013 96 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 99 101 104 106 109 112 114 117 120 123 126 129 133 136 139 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 22 7 0 70 1296 0 1395 22 9 0 70 1296 0 1397 22 12 0 70 1296 0 1400 22 14 0 70 1296 0 1403 22 17 0 70 1296 0 1405 22 20 0 70 1296 0 1408 22 22 0 70 1296 0 1411 22 25 0 70 1296 0 1414 22 28 0 70 1296 0 1417 22 31 0 70 1296 0 1420 22 34 0 70 1296 0 1423 22 37 0 70 1296 0 1426 22 41 0 70 1296 0 1429 22 44 0 70 1296 0 1432 22 47 0 70 1296 0 1436
22 65 0 0 0 0 87
22 67 0 0 0 0 89
22 70 0 0 0 0 91
22 2 0 70 0 0 94
22 4 0 70 0 0 96
Table A-70 Dominica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
A-68
Table A-71 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 2,941 -58 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,059 -176 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,180 -297 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,300 -417 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,409 -526 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,612 -729 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,733 -850 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,859 -976 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,989 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,124 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,263 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,406 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,554 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,707 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,865 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,029 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,198 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,372 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,553 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,740 2009 2,353 0 2010 2,447 0 2011 2,544 0 2012 2,640 0 2013 2,727 0 2014 2,803 108 2015 2,896 113 2016 2,992 119 2017 3,091 125 2018 3,194 131 2019 3,300 138 2020 3,409 145 2021 3,522 152 2022 3,638 159 2023 3,758 167 2024 3,882 176 2025 4,010 185 2026 4,143 194 2027 4,280 203 2028 4,421 214
-1,106 -1,241 -1,380 -1,523 -1,671 -1,824 -1,982 -2,146 -2,315 -2,490 -2,670 -2,857
A-69
New Capacity (MW) Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,033 92 29% 50 100 17 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,137 78 28% 50 100 17 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,182 2 25% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 239 34% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 130 30% 50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,539 -69 50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,839 109 50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,839 -16 50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,189 204 50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,189 70 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,489 231 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,489 88 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 50 100 0 4,789 240 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 0 4,839 137 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 0 4,839 -21 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,800 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,139 116 50 100 17 87 45 57 1,800 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,139 -53 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,100 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,439 73 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,400 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,739 192 50 100 17 87 45 57 2,400 0 0 0 100 100 0 5,739 6
21.7% 27.7% 23.6% 30.4% 26.1% 30.7% 26.5% 30.5% 27.6% 23.4% 26.8% 22.7% 25.6% 28.2% 24.0%
A-70
Table A-72 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) 0 0 0 0 0 520 546 573 602 632 664 697 732 768 807 847 889 934 980 1,029 Generation (GWh) Andres 1709 1476 1562 1390 1468 1600 1460 1524 1378 1430 1332 1389 1324 1362 1413 1335 1375 1313 1261 1300 Itabo 1004 820 866 770 803 869 792 823 747 781 738 766 716 734 765 744 787 768 757 802 Itabo 706 583 614 546 569 616 561 584 530 553 523 542 507 520 542 526 557 543 534 566 Los Mina 865 1013 1044 914 948 1019 924 961 874 910 852 884 832 854 888 850 885 854 828 861 Itabo 73 164 171 153 158 171 155 162 148 155 146 153 142 146 152 148 156 152 150 159 Higuamo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Haina 362 410 428 383 399 430 391 407 374 390 368 381 357 366 381 369 390 379 373 393 Haina 267 284 296 263 274 295 268 279 256 267 252 261 244 250 261 253 266 259 255 268 San Pedro 123 138 144 129 134 145 132 137 126 131 124 128 120 123 128 124 131 128 126 132 Puerto Plata 103 116 121 108 112 121 110 115 105 110 104 107 100 103 107 104 110 107 105 111 Puerto Plata 146 163 170 152 159 171 156 162 149 155 146 152 142 146 152 147 155 151 148 156 Haina 237 465 483 431 446 480 437 454 417 435 411 428 400 410 427 415 438 427 419 444 Barahona 302 252 265 236 246 266 242 252 229 239 226 234 219 224 234 227 240 234 231 244 Sultana DE 487 363 370 321 330 353 318 331 302 316 297 307 286 294 306 296 311 302 295 309 CESPM. 1057 1257 1283 1116 1148 1226 1108 1151 1052 1098 1032 1070 998 1023 1065 1031 1084 1052 1029 1080 San Felipe 515 771 795 701 724 777 705 732 671 700 660 686 640 657 684 663 699 680 667 704 Palamara 523 401 410 357 368 394 356 370 338 353 332 344 321 329 343 332 349 338 331 347 La Vega 425 328 335 292 302 322 292 303 277 289 272 282 263 270 281 271 286 277 271 285 CEPP 75 62 64 56 58 62 56 58 53 56 52 54 51 52 54 52 55 53 52 55 CEPP 226 188 193 169 175 187 169 176 161 168 158 164 153 157 164 158 167 162 158 167 Seaboard 202 161 165 144 149 160 144 150 137 143 135 140 130 134 139 135 142 138 135 141 Seaboard 369 275 281 244 252 269 243 252 231 241 226 234 219 224 233 226 237 230 225 236 Monte Rio 516 377 383 333 343 366 330 343 314 327 308 318 297 305 317 307 322 313 306 320 Metaldom 202 157 161 140 145 155 140 146 133 139 131 135 126 130 135 131 137 133 130 137 Laesa 116 123 128 114 119 128 116 121 111 116 109 113 106 109 113 110 116 112 110 116 Maxon 75 118 122 108 111 120 109 113 103 108 102 106 99 101 106 102 108 105 103 109 Falconbridge 129 144 150 134 139 150 137 142 130 136 129 133 125 128 133 129 136 132 130 137 Reservoir Hydro 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 Non Reser Hydro 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276
A-71
Pinalto 143 Palomino 150 Hatillo et al 0 Las Placetas 0 Arbonito 0 Hondo Valle et al 0 300 MW CC 0 300 MW ConvCoal 0 Montecristi 0 Haltillo-Azua 0 50 MW GT 0 Montafongo,Bani,El Norte 0 Wind 0 Total Generation (GWh) 12638
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 0 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 0 0 1597 1690 1845 3370 3518 4770 4945 6141 6406 7650 7868 8163 9231 9492 10561 11570 11912 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 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 0 209 218 203 211 200 412 428 406 421 404 389 403 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13142 13663 14179 14646 15574 16100 16643 17203 17786 18387 19006 19646 20307 20991 21698 22429 23185 23966 24775
A-72
Table A-73 Dominican Republic Interconnection Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
A-73
Table A-74 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
2,353 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
2,941
2,447 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,059
2,544 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,180
2,640 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,300
2,727 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,409
2,803 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,504
2,896 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,620
2,992 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,740
3,091 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,864
3,194 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
3,993
3,300 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,125
3,409 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,261
3,522 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,402
3,638 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,547
3,758 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,698
3,882 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
4,853
4,010 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
5,013
4,143 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
5,179
4,280 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
5,350
4,421 0 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883
5,526
Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Total Existing (MW)
Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW)
-58
-176
-297
-417
-526
-621
-737
-857
-981
-1,110 -1,242 -1,378 -1,519 -1,664 -1,815 -1,970 -2,130 -2,296 -2,467 -2,643
A-74
New Capacity (MW)
Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind
Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%)
50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3,033
50 100 17 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
3,137
50 100 17 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 30
3,182
50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 60

3,539
50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 90

3,539
50 100 17 87 45 57 300 0 0 0 0 100 120

3,539
50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 150

3,839
50 100 17 87 45 57 600 0 0 0 0 100 180

3,839
50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 210

4,189
50 100 17 87 45 57 900 0 0 0 50 100 240

4,189
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 270

4,489
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,200 0 0 0 50 100 300

4,489
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 50 100 330

4,789
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 360

4,839
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,500 0 0 0 100 100 390

4,839
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,800 0 0 0 100 100 420

5,139
50 100 17 87 45 57 1,800 0 0 0 100 100 450

5,139
50 100 17 87 45 57 2,100 0 0 0 100 100 480

5,439
50 100 17 87 45 57 2,400 0 0 0 100 100 510

5,739
50 100 17 87 45 57 2,400 0 0 0 100 100 540

5,739
92 29%
78 28%
2 25%
239 34%
130 30%
35
219
99
325
196
364
228
387
292
141
286
126
260
389
213
26.3% 32.6% 28.3% 35.5% 31.1% 36.0% 31.7% 36.0% 33.0% 28.8% 32.4% 28.1% 31.3% 34.1% 29.8%
A-75
Table A-75 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Generation (GWh) Andres 1709 1476 1550 1369 1437 1492 1353 1404 1264 1305 1210 1256 1194 1223 1265 1191 1224 1166 1116 1149 Itabo 1004 820 859 758 786 811 734 759 685 712 671 693 645 659 685 664 701 682 671 709 Itabo 706 583 609 538 557 574 520 538 486 505 475 490 457 467 485 470 495 482 473 500 Los Mina 865 1013 1036 900 928 950 856 886 801 830 774 800 750 767 795 758 788 758 733 761 Itabo 73 164 169 150 155 159 144 149 136 141 133 138 128 131 136 132 139 135 133 141 Higuamo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Haina 362 410 425 377 390 401 363 375 343 356 334 345 322 329 341 330 347 337 330 348 Haina 267 284 293 259 268 275 248 257 235 244 229 236 220 225 233 225 237 230 225 237 San Pedro 123 138 143 127 131 135 122 126 115 120 113 116 108 111 115 111 117 113 111 117 Puerto Plata 103 116 120 106 110 113 102 106 96 100 94 97 91 93 96 93 98 95 93 98 Puerto Plata 146 163 169 150 155 160 144 149 136 142 133 137 128 131 136 131 138 134 131 138 Haina 237 465 479 424 436 448 405 419 382 397 373 387 360 368 382 370 390 379 371 393 Barahona 302 252 263 232 241 248 224 232 210 218 205 212 197 201 209 203 214 208 204 216 Sultana DE 487 363 367 316 323 329 295 305 277 288 270 278 258 264 274 264 277 268 261 273 CESPM. 1057 1257 1274 1100 1124 1143 1027 1061 964 1002 938 968 899 919 953 920 965 934 911 955 San Felipe 515 771 789 691 708 724 653 675 615 639 600 620 577 590 612 592 622 604 591 622 Palamara 523 401 407 352 361 367 330 341 310 322 302 311 289 296 307 296 310 300 293 307 La Vega 425 328 333 288 295 301 270 279 254 264 247 255 237 242 251 242 254 246 240 252 CEPP 75 62 63 55 56 58 52 54 49 51 47 49 46 47 48 47 49 47 46 49 CEPP 226 188 191 166 171 175 157 162 148 154 144 148 138 141 146 141 148 144 140 147 Seaboard 202 161 164 142 146 149 134 138 126 131 122 126 117 120 125 120 126 122 119 125 Seaboard 369 275 279 241 246 251 225 233 211 220 206 212 197 201 209 201 211 204 200 209 Monte Rio 516 377 380 328 335 341 306 316 287 299 280 288 268 273 284 274 287 278 271 283 Metaldom 202 157 160 138 142 145 130 134 122 127 119 123 114 116 121 117 122 118 116 121 Laesa 116 123 127 112 116 119 108 111 102 106 99 102 95 98 101 98 103 100 98 103 Maxon 75 118 121 106 109 112 101 104 95 99 92 96 89 91 94 91 96 93 91 96 Falconbridge 129 144 149 132 136 140 127 131 120 124 117 120 112 115 119 115 121 118 115 121 Reservoir Hydro 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 Non Reser Hydro 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276
A-76
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 0 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 0 0 1573 1654 1721 3124 3242 4374 4512 5578 5795 6895 7066 7307 8238 8448 9375 10248 10528 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 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 0 192 199 185 191 181 370 383 363 374 358 345 356 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 0 84 168 252 336 420 505 589 673 757 841 925 1009 1093 1177 1261 1346 1430 1514 13142 13663 14179 14646 15054 15554 16070 16601 17154 17724 18309 18914 19539 20184 20851 21539 22251 22986 23745
A-77
Table A-76 Dominican Republic Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 140.2 58.8 45.0 114.0 16.0 0.0 45.0 32.1 15.2 12.7 17.9 47.1 20.3 43.2 145.0 88.6 47.7 39.0 7.4 22.3 19.2 32.7 44.6 18.7 14.1 13.5 16.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,149 0 1,149 2010 123.0 47.3 36.8 133.6 36.4 0.0 80.5 53.4 26.9 22.5 31.8 94.6 16.7 50.3 175.9 133.4 57.9 47.6 9.6 29.1 24.2 38.7 51.7 23.0 23.4 21.3 28.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,458 385 1,843 2011 126.1 49.1 38.1 133.7 40.4 0.0 90.8 60.0 30.4 25.4 35.9 104.8 17.3 55.0 190.9 146.1 63.7 52.4 10.6 32.2 26.7 42.4 56.6 25.3 26.2 23.4 31.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.9 1,578 150 1,728 2012 112.4 44.1 34.2 116.7 39.4 0.0 89.2 58.8 29.9 25.0 35.3 101.8 15.6 52.5 181.4 140.6 61.1 50.3 10.3 31.1 25.7 40.6 54.1 24.4 25.7 22.5 31.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 116.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.9 1,616 465 2,081 2013 114.9 45.4 35.2 117.4 41.7 0.0 96.2 63.2 32.2 27.0 38.1 107.6 16.0 55.7 190.4 148.0 65.1 53.6 11.0 33.2 27.4 43.2 57.5 25.9 27.6 23.7 33.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 119.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.8 1,697 37.5 1,735 2014 117.9 46.8 36.3 119.0 44.7 0.0 103.6 67.9 34.7 29.0 41.0 115.3 16.5 59.1 201.9 157.8 69.2 57.0 11.7 35.4 29.2 45.9 61.1 27.6 29.6 25.3 35.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 122.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.8 1,790 37.5 1,828 2015 107.6 42.9 33.3 107.6 41.9 0.0 96.7 63.4 32.4 27.1 38.3 107.8 15.1 55.0 188.0 147.4 64.4 53.1 10.9 33.0 27.2 42.7 56.8 25.7 27.7 23.7 33.5 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 223.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 4.7 1,776 322.5 2,098 2016 111.4 44.5 34.5 111.3 43.7 0.0 100.8 66.1 33.8 28.3 39.9 112.5 15.7 57.1 195.6 153.5 67.0 55.2 11.3 34.3 28.3 44.5 59.1 26.7 28.8 24.7 34.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 231.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.7 1,845 37.5 1,883 2017 101.7 40.5 31.5 101.6 40.0 0.0 92.8 60.8 31.1 26.0 36.7 102.9 14.3 52.5 179.0 140.7 61.6 50.7 10.4 31.6 26.0 40.8 54.3 24.6 26.5 22.6 32.2 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 316.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 3.1 6.6 1,820 345 2,165 2018 105.8 42.0 32.6 106.3 41.7 0.0 96.6 63.2 32.4 27.1 38.3 107.4 14.8 54.6 186.3 146.6 64.0 52.7 10.8 32.8 27.0 42.4 56.4 25.5 27.6 23.5 33.5 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 329.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 3.1 7.6 1,893 37.5 1,931 2019 99.4 39.4 30.6 100.1 39.6 0.0 91.5 59.9 30.7 25.7 36.3 101.8 13.9 51.6 176.3 138.9 60.6 49.9 10.3 31.1 25.6 40.2 53.4 24.2 26.2 22.3 31.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 411.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 3.1 8.5 1,894 322.5 2,217 2020 101.1 40.1 31.2 101.3 41.2 0.0 93.9 61.5 31.5 26.3 37.2 105.8 14.2 52.9 182.2 144.0 62.1 51.1 10.5 31.9 26.2 41.1 54.6 24.8 26.9 23.2 32.5 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 418.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 3.1 9.5 1,941 37.5 1,979 2021 94.1 37.6 29.3 92.9 38.6 0.0 88.7 58.1 29.7 24.9 35.1 99.2 13.3 49.9 171.1 135.3 58.6 48.3 9.9 30.1 24.7 38.8 51.6 23.4 25.4 21.8 30.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 487.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 3.1 10.4 1,921 322.5 2,243 2022 96.5 38.6 30.0 95.3 39.9 0.0 91.3 59.8 30.6 25.6 36.2 102.4 13.7 51.3 176.3 139.4 60.3 49.6 10.2 30.9 25.4 39.9 53.0 24.1 26.1 22.4 31.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 500.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 3.1 11.4 1,993 60 2,053 2023 99.8 39.9 31.0 98.8 41.2 0.0 94.5 61.9 31.7 26.5 37.4 105.9 14.1 53.0 182.1 144.0 62.3 51.3 10.6 32.0 26.3 41.3 54.8 24.9 27.0 23.2 32.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 517.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 3.1 12.3 2,059 37.5 2,097 2024 97.2 38.6 30.0 97.4 40.5 0.0 92.2 60.4 30.9 25.9 36.5 104.1 13.6 51.6 178.2 141.3 60.7 50.0 10.3 31.2 25.6 40.2 53.4 24.2 26.4 22.7 32.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 603.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.5 3.1 13.2 2,113 322.5 2,436 2025 102.0 40.1 31.2 103.4 43.2 0.0 97.9 64.0 32.8 27.4 38.8 110.9 14.2 54.4 188.6 149.9 64.0 52.8 10.9 32.9 27.1 42.4 56.3 25.6 27.9 24.1 33.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 633.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 3.1 14.2 2,227 37.5 2,264 2026 99.6 38.9 30.3 101.8 42.4 0.0 95.8 62.6 32.1 26.9 38.0 108.8 13.8 53.2 184.8 147.1 62.6 51.6 10.6 32.2 26.5 41.5 55.0 25.0 27.3 23.7 33.2 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 720.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.8 3.1 15.1 2,283 322.5 2,606 2027 97.7 37.9 29.5 100.7 42.2 0.0 95.5 62.4 32.0 26.8 37.9 108.2 13.4 52.7 182.8 146.0 62.2 51.2 10.6 32.0 26.3 41.1 54.6 24.8 27.2 23.5 33.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 805.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 3.1 16.1 2,356 322.5 2,678 2028 101.8 39.2 30.5 106.1 45.7 0.0 102.0 66.5 34.2 28.6 40.4 117.0 13.8 55.8 195.5 156.9 65.9 54.3 11.2 34.0 27.9 43.6 57.7 26.3 29.0 25.3 35.3 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 840.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 3.1 17.0 2,485 37.5 2,522
A-78
Table A-77 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

17 16 16 49 42 7 0 0 0 49 7 57%
17 16 16 49 44 4 0 0 0 49 4 49%
17 16 16 49 46 2 0 0 0 49 2 41%
17 16 16 49 49 0 0 0 3 49 0 34%
17 16 16 49 52 -3 10 0 5 59 7
17 16 16 49 54 -6 10 0 5 59 4
17 16 16 49 57 -9 10 0 6 59 1
17 16 16 49 60 -12 20 0 6 69 8
17 16 16 49 64 -15 20 0 6 69 5
17 16 16 49 67 -18 20 0 8 69 2
17 16 16 49 71 -22 30 0 8 79 8
17 16 16 49 74 -26 30 0 9 79 4
17 16 16 49 78 -30 30 0 9 79 0
17 16 16 49 83 -34 40 0 9 89 6
17 16 16 49 87 -39 40 0 11 89 1
17 16 16 49 92 -43 50 0 11 99 7
17 16 16 49 97 -48 50 0 11 99 2
17 16 16 49 102 -53 60 0 12 109 7
17 16 16 49 107 -59 60 0 12 109 1
17 16 16 49 113 -65 70 0 12 119 5
53% 45.4% 37.9% 53.3% 45.5% 38.0% 50.1% 42.4% 35.2% 44.6% 37.2% 45.0% 37.6% 43.8% 36.4% 41.4%
A-79
Table A-78 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 209 2011 220 2012 232 2013 244 2014 257 2015 270 2016 285 2017 300 2018 316 2019 333 2020 350 2021 369 2022 389 2023 409 2024 431 2025 454 2026 478 2027 504 2028 530
71 69 69 0 0 0 209
75 73 73 0 0 0 220
76 74 74 0 0 8 232
62 60 60 48 0 13 244
66 64 64 51 0 13 257
68 66 66 52 0 17 270
60 58 58 92 0 17 285
63 61 61 97 0 17 300
66 64 64 101 0 21 316
60 58 58 137 0 21 333
62 60 60 143 0 25 350
66 64 64 151 0 25 369
61 59 59 185 0 25 389
63 61 61 194 0 29 409
59 58 58 227 0 29 431
63 61 61 240 0 29 454
59 57 57 271 0 34 478
62 61 61 286 0 34 504
60 58 58 320 0 34 530
Table A-79 Grenada Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 10.9 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2010 11.8 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2011 13.3 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2012 14.7 14.2 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 43 3.75 47 2013 12.5 12.1 12.1 8.0 0.0 0.1 45 6.375 51 2014 13.7 13.3 13.3 8.8 0.0 0.1 49 0 49 2015 14.7 14.2 14.2 9.4 0.0 0.2 53 1.875 55 2016 13.0 12.6 12.6 16.7 0.0 0.2 55 4.5 60 2017 13.7 13.3 13.3 17.6 0.0 0.2 58 0 58 2018 14.4 13.9 13.9 18.4 0.0 0.2 61 1.875 63 2019 13.1 12.7 12.7 25.2 0.0 0.2 64 4.5 68 2020 13.7 13.3 13.3 26.3 0.0 0.3 67 1.875 69 2021 14.5 14.1 14.1 28.0 0.0 0.3 71 0 71 2022 13.6 13.2 13.2 34.8 0.0 0.3 75 4.5 79 2023 14.1 13.7 13.7 36.2 0.0 0.3 78 1.875 80 2024 13.4 13.0 13.0 43.1 0.0 0.3 83 4.5 87 2025 14.3 13.9 13.9 46.0 0.0 0.3 89 0 89 2026 13.6 13.2 13.2 52.6 0.0 0.4 93 6.375 99 2027 14.6 14.2 14.2 56.2 0.0 0.4 100 0 100 2028 14.3 13.9 13.9 64.4 0.0 0.4 107 4.5 111
A-80
Table A-80 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces Total Existing (MW) 2009 226 0 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 2010 237 0 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 308 -153 30 30 100 0 315 7 33% 2011 249 0 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 324 -169 30 30 120 0 335 11 35% 2012 261 0 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 340 -185 30 30 120 0 335 -5 28% 2013 274 0 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 357 -202 30 30 120 0 335 -22 2014 288 -96 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 279 -124 30 30 120 0 335 56 2015 303 -101 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 292 -137 30 30 120 0 335 43 2016 318 -106 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 307 -152 30 30 120 0 335 28 2017 334 -111 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 322 -167 30 30 120 0 335 13 2018 350 -117 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 339 -184 30 30 120 0 335 -4 2019 368 -123 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 355 -200 30 30 140 0 355 0 2020 386 -129 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 373 -218 30 30 160 0 375 2 2021 405 -135 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 392 -237 30 30 180 0 395 3 2022 426 -142 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 411 -256 30 30 200 0 415 4 2023 447 -149 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 432 -277 30 30 220 0 435 3 2024 469 -156 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 454 -299 30 30 240 0 455 1 2025 493 -164 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 476 -321 30 30 260 0 475 -1 2026 517 -172 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 500 -345 30 30 300 0 515 15 2027 543 -181 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 525 -370 30 30 320 0 535 10 2028 570 -190 34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 551 -396 30 30 340 0 555 4
22% 74.4% 66.1% 58.2% 50.7% 43.5% 44.8% 45.7% 46.1% 46.2% 46.0% 45.4% 44.6% 49.3% 47.7% 45.9%
A-81
Table A-81 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 660 0 67 48 71 30 15 54 11 75 79 210 0 660 2010 726 0 69 49 71 31 15 56 11 77 79 269 0 726 2011 799 0 71 50 71 32 16 58 11 79 79 333 0 799 2012 878 0 80 56 71 36 18 65 11 89 79 374 0 878 2013 966 0 90 63 71 41 20 73 11 100 79 419 0 966 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782 -463 -486 -510 -536 -562 -591 -620 -651 -684 -718 -754 -791 -831 -873 -916 49 35 71 22 11 40 11 54 79 229 0 600 58 41 71 26 13 48 11 65 79 272 0 683 68 48 71 31 16 56 11 76 79 320 0 776 80 56 71 36 18 65 11 89 79 374 0 879 93 65 71 42 21 76 11 103 79 433 0 994 98 69 71 45 22 80 11 109 79 536 0 1121 105 74 71 48 24 86 11 116 79 651 0 1263 103 73 71 47 23 84 11 114 79 722 0 1326 102 72 71 46 23 83 11 113 79 793 0 1392 101 71 71 46 23 83 11 112 79 866 0 1462 101 71 71 46 23 82 11 112 79 940 0 1535 101 71 71 46 23 82 11 111 79 1018 0 1612 96 68 71 44 22 79 11 106 79 1119 0 1692 96 68 71 44 22 79 11 107 79 1201 0 1777 97 69 71 44 22 80 11 108 79 1286 0 1866
Table A-82 Haiti Interconnection Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 11.4 8.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 11.9 0.4 10.7 1.2 28.5 0.0 82 38.4 120 2010 12.0 8.5 0.0 6.9 3.5 12.5 0.4 11.2 1.2 37.4 0.0 94 9.6 103 2011 13.1 9.3 0.0 7.6 3.8 13.6 0.4 12.3 1.2 49.3 0.0 111 9.6 120 2012 15.9 11.2 0.0 9.2 4.6 16.5 0.4 14.9 1.2 59.8 0.0 134 0 134 2013 18.1 12.8 0.0 10.5 5.2 18.8 0.4 17.1 1.2 68.3 0.0 153 0 153 2014 10.9 7.7 0.0 6.3 3.2 11.3 0.4 10.2 1.2 40.8 0.0 92 0 92 2015 13.1 9.3 0.0 7.6 3.8 13.6 0.4 12.3 1.2 49.2 0.0 110 0 110 2016 15.3 10.8 0.0 8.8 4.4 15.9 0.4 14.4 1.2 57.6 0.0 129 0 129 2017 17.7 12.5 0.0 10.2 5.1 18.4 0.4 16.7 1.2 66.6 0.0 149 0 149 2018 20.4 14.4 0.0 11.7 5.9 21.1 0.4 19.2 1.2 76.9 0.0 171 0 171 2019 21.7 15.3 0.0 12.5 6.2 22.5 0.4 20.5 1.2 95.6 0.0 196 9.6 206 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
23.0 22.9 22.8 22.6 22.8 23.0 22.2 22.7 23.3 16.3 16.1 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.7 16.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 13.1 13.3 12.8 13.0 13.4 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.7 23.9 23.7 23.7 23.4 23.6 23.9 23.0 23.5 24.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 21.8 21.6 21.6 21.3 21.5 21.8 21.0 21.4 22.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 116.1 129.5 143.7 156.6 172.3 188.6 209.9 228.2 249.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 223 235 249 261 278 295 313 333 358 9.6 232 9.6 245 9.6 259 9.6 271 9.6 287 9.6 305 19.2 332 9.6 343 9.6 367
A-82
Table A-83 Haiti Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 308 -153 30 30 100 0 315 7 33%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 324 -169 30 30 120 5 335 11 35%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 340 -185 30 30 140 9 355 15 36%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 357 -202 30 30 160 14 375 18
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 375 -220 30 30 160 18 375 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 393 -238 30 30 180 23 395 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 413 -258 30 30 200 27 415 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 434 -279 30 30 220 32 435 1
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 455 -300 30 30 240 36 455 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 478 -323 30 30 280 41 495 17
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 502 -347 30 30 300 45 515 13
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 527 -372 30 30 320 50 535 8
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 553 -398 30 30 340 54 555 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 581 -426 30 30 380 59 595 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 610 -455 30 30 400 63 615 5
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 641 -486 30 30 440 68 655 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 673 -518 30 30 460 72 675 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 706 -551 30 30 500 77 715 9
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 742 -587 30 30 540 81 755 13
37% 30.2% 30.6% 30.6% 30.4% 29.9% 34.6% 33.4% 32.0% 30.4% 33.1% 31.0% 32.9% 30.5% 31.6% 32.3%
A-83
Table A-84 Haiti Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 660 0 67 48 71 30 15 54 11 75 79 210 0 660 2010 726 0 69 49 71 31 15 56 11 77 79 269 0 726 2011 799 0 70 49 71 31 16 56 11 77 79 326 13 799 2012 878 0 71 50 71 32 16 58 11 79 79 387 25 878 2013 966 0 73 51 71 33 16 59 11 81 79 454 38 966 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 57 71 37 18 66 11 90 79 504 50 1063 84 59 71 38 19 68 11 93 79 586 63 1169 87 61 71 39 20 71 11 96 79 676 76 1286 91 64 71 41 21 74 11 100 79 776 88 1415 95 67 71 43 22 78 11 105 79 886 101 1556 94 67 71 43 21 77 11 105 79 1030 114 1712 100 70 71 45 23 82 11 111 79 1166 126 1883 100 71 71 45 23 82 11 111 79 1246 139 1977 100 71 71 46 23 82 11 111 79 1331 151 2076 97 69 71 44 22 79 11 108 79 1437 164 2180 98 69 71 45 22 80 11 109 79 1528 177 2289 96 68 71 44 22 78 11 106 79 1640 189 2403 97 69 71 44 22 80 11 108 79 1742 202 2523 96 68 71 44 22 78 11 106 79 1862 214 2650 95 67 71 43 22 78 11 105 79 1987 227 2782
Table A-85 Haiti Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 11.4 8.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 11.9 0.4 10.7 1.2 28.5 0.0 82 38.4 120 2010 12.0 8.5 0.0 6.9 3.5 12.5 0.4 11.2 1.2 37.4 0.0 94 9.6 103 2011 12.9 9.1 0.0 7.4 3.7 13.4 0.4 12.1 1.2 48.4 0.1 109 2012 14.3 10.1 0.0 8.2 4.1 14.8 0.4 13.4 1.2 62.5 0.3 129 2013 15.0 10.6 0.0 8.6 4.3 15.5 0.4 14.1 1.2 75.1 0.4 145 2014 17.2 12.1 0.0 9.9 4.9 17.8 0.4 16.1 1.2 86.1 0.6 166 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
18.2 19.0 19.8 20.8 20.9 22.1 22.3 22.6 21.8 22.3 22.0 22.5 22.5 22.7 12.9 13.4 14.0 14.7 14.7 15.6 15.7 15.9 15.4 15.7 15.5 15.9 15.9 16.0 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 10.5 11.0 11.4 12.0 12.0 12.7 12.8 13.0 12.5 12.8 12.7 13.0 13.0 13.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 18.9 19.7 20.6 21.6 21.7 22.9 23.1 23.4 22.6 23.1 22.8 23.4 23.3 23.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 17.2 17.9 18.7 19.6 19.7 20.8 21.0 21.3 20.6 21.0 20.8 21.3 21.2 21.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 103.0 119.7 137.2 157.0 183.9 208.2 224.1 241.4 260.3 280.4 304.7 326.4 354.0 386.3 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 188 209 230 254 282 312 329 347 363 385 409 433 460 494
15.23 15.23 15.23 5.625 15.23 15.23 15.23 15.23 24.83 15.23 15.23 15.23 24.83 15.23 24.83 15.23 24.83 24.83 124 144 161 172 203 224 245 270 307 327 344 363 388 401 433 448 485 519
A-84
Table A-86 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 850 -68 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 1 25%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 884 -103 68 0 0 85 6 0 0 0 0 0 935 51 32%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 921 -139 68 0 0 85 12 0 0 0 0 15 935 15 27%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 959 -177 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 27
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 998 -217 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 39
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
1,039 1,083 1,130 1,179 1,229 1,282 1,338 1,396 1,456 1,518 1,583 1,652 1,724 1,799 1,877 -286 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 0 51 -330 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 100 63 -377 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 200 75 -426 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 200 87 -476 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 300 99 -529 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 300 111 -620 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 400 123 -677 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 500 135 -795 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 600 147 -857 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 600 159 -984 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 800 171 -1,053 -1,190 -1,265 -1,343 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 800 183 68 68 68 120 120 120 60 60 60 85 85 85 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,100 195 207 219
1,055 1,055 1,087 1,187 1,287 1,287 1,387 1,387 1,452 1,552 1,595 1,595 1,733 1,733 1,868 1,868 1,968 97 38% 57 47 103 156 108 157 104 114 156 139 77 150 81 144 69 91
32% 30.7% 36.9% 42.3% 36.4% 41.0% 35.2% 35.6% 39.0% 36.9% 31.3% 36.8% 31.1% 35.4% 29.8% 31.0%
A-85
Table A-87 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

A-86
Table A-88 Jamaica Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Wigton Hydro 2009 19.4 38.8 42.0 44.3 44.3 15.2 0.0 22.7 15.2 28.0 28.3 79.6 48.2 32.5 39.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2010 2011 2012 31.2 62.2 67.4 71.0 71.0 34.5 0.0 23.7 33.2 79.3 54.5 86.3 44.6 30.0 35.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 42.3 41.7 0.0 87.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 900 2013 33.9 67.5 73.2 77.1 77.1 36.8 0.0 25.5 35.3 84.4 58.0 91.4 47.8 32.2 38.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 44.7 43.6 0.0 92.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 963 15 978 2014 0.0 69.3 75.1 79.1 79.1 37.8 0.0 25.6 36.3 87.0 59.4 91.6 47.7 32.1 37.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 44.3 40.7 21.4 93.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 963 147 2015 0.0 67.1 72.7 76.6 76.6 36.8 0.0 24.6 35.3 85.1 57.7 87.8 45.5 30.6 36.1 0.5 0.9 1.1 42.3 37.1 19.4 90.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.6 2.0 959 235 2016 0.0 63.6 69.0 72.7 72.7 34.9 0.0 23.3 33.5 80.8 54.8 83.1 43.1 29.1 34.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 40.1 35.0 18.3 86.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 2.4 939 235 2017 0.0 66.6 72.2 76.1 76.1 36.5 0.0 24.3 35.0 84.3 57.1 86.5 44.9 30.3 35.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 41.7 36.1 18.8 89.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.2 2.7 979 15 994 2018 0.0 63.3 68.7 72.3 72.3 34.7 0.0 23.1 33.3 80.3 54.4 82.3 42.7 28.8 33.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 39.6 34.2 17.8 85.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.9 3.1 960 235 2019 0.0 66.3 71.9 75.7 75.7 36.5 0.0 24.1 35.0 84.4 57.1 86.0 44.5 30.0 35.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2020 0.0 63.8 69.2 72.9 72.9 35.6 0.0 0.0 34.1 82.4 55.7 83.6 42.9 28.9 34.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 2021 0.0 62.0 67.3 70.9 70.9 34.4 0.0 0.0 33.0 79.7 53.8 80.7 41.6 28.0 33.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 2022 0.0 0.0 68.1 71.7 71.7 34.9 0.0 0.0 33.5 80.9 54.6 81.6 41.9 28.2 33.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 2023 0.0 0.0 70.8 74.5 74.5 36.3 0.0 0.0 34.8 84.1 56.7 84.6 43.4 29.2 34.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 2024 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.8 70.8 34.8 0.0 0.0 33.3 80.7 54.3 80.5 41.1 27.7 32.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2025 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.5 74.5 36.7 0.0 0.0 35.2 85.3 57.3 84.6 42.9 28.9 34.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 2026 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 0.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 34.2 82.8 55.6 81.6 41.2 27.8 32.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 2027 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.2 0.0 37.7 0.0 0.0 36.1 87.7 58.8 85.9 43.3 29.2 34.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2028 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.9 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 36.5 88.6 59.3 86.1 42.9 28.9 34.0 0.5 0.9 1.1
25.2 28.1 50.3 55.9 54.5 60.6 57.4 63.9 57.4 63.9 19.9 22.2 0.0 0.0 29.3 32.5 19.9 22.2 36.6 40.8 36.9 41.2 103.8 115.7 62.2 69.1 41.9 46.6 50.7 56.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 82.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 791 66.8 0.0 0.0 91.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 880
41.3 40.2 38.8 39.1 40.5 38.5 40.3 38.8 40.7 40.7 35.0 33.6 32.3 32.1 33.2 30.8 31.6 29.8 30.5 29.5 18.2 17.5 16.8 16.7 17.2 16.0 16.4 15.4 15.8 15.3 89.4 87.1 84.2 85.2 88.4 84.5 89.0 86.1 90.8 91.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.9 113.7 136.4 162.6 167.7 207.5 213.0 250.5 256.5 273.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.9 1,002 975 971 944 978 912 953 893 933 950 15 235 235 235 15 993 455 1,367 15 968 455 1,348 15 948 235 1,185
96.75 26.25 286.5 887 907 1,186
1,110 1,194 1,174
1,195 1,017 1,210 1,206 1,179
A-87
Table A-89 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 29 2010 30 2011 31 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 32 9 0 0 42 9 94% 2012 32 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 34 8 0 0 42 8 84% 2013 33 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 35 6 0 0 42 6 2014 35 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 37 5 0 0 42 5 2015 36 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 3 0 0 42 3 2016 37 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 40 1 0 0 42 1 2017 38 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 42 -1 0 0 42 -1 2018 40 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 25 17 0 0 42 17 2019 41 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 26 15 0 0 42 15 2020 43 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 28 13 0 0 42 13 2021 44 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 30 11 0 0 42 11 2022 46 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 33 9 0 0 42 9 2023 47 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 35 7 0 0 42 7 2024 49 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 37 5 0 0 42 5 2025 51 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 2 0 0 42 2 2026 52 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 42 0 0 0 42 0 2027 54 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 44 -3 5 0 47 2 2028 56 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 47 -5 5 0 47 0
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 2 0 0 42 2 43%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 41 1 0 0 42 1 38%
75% 67.0% 59.2% 51.8% 44.9% 288.0% 243.0% 206.3% 175.7% 149.9% 127.8% 108.7% 92.0% 77.3% 84.1% 71.2%
A-88
Table A-90 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units 5 MW MSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 161 2010 166 2011 171 -68 16 20 21 17 8 20 0 0 103 2012 175 -68 16 21 22 18 9 21 0 0 108 2013 180 -68 17 22 23 19 9 22 0 0 113 2014 186 -68 18 23 24 20 10 23 0 0 118 2015 191 -68 19 24 25 21 10 24 0 0 123 2016 196 -68 19 25 26 22 11 26 0 0 129 2017 202 -68 20 26 28 23 11 27 0 0 134 2018 208 -203 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 2019 214 -203 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 11 2020 220 -203 3 3 4 3 1 3 0 0 17 2021 226 -203 4 5 5 4 2 5 0 0 23 2022 233 -203 5 6 6 5 2 6 0 0 30 2023 239 -203 6 7 8 6 3 7 0 0 37 2024 246 -203 7 9 9 7 4 9 0 0 43 2025 253 -203 8 10 10 8 4 10 0 0 51 2026 261 -203 9 11 12 10 5 11 0 0 58 2027 268 -203 9 11 12 10 5 11 7 0 65 2028 276 -203 10 13 13 11 5 13 8 0 73
24 32 33 27 13 32 0 0 161
25 32 34 28 14 33 0 0 166
Table A-91 St. Kitts Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C 5 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 23 0 23 2010 3.6 4.7 5.2 4.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 2.5 3.2 3.6 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 17 0 17 2012 2.8 3.7 4.1 3.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 19 0 19 2013 3.0 3.9 4.4 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 21 0 21 2014 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2015 3.5 4.6 5.1 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 24 0 24 2016 3.7 4.8 5.4 4.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2017 3.9 5.0 5.6 4.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 26 0 26 2018 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 2 0 2 2019 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 4 0 4 2020 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2021 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 6 0 6 2022 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 7 0 7 2023 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 8 0 8 2024 1.4 1.9 2.1 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 10 0 10 2025 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 11 2026 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 13 0 13 2027 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.1 1.6 0.0 15 2.25 17 2028 2.2 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.2 1.8 0.0 16 0 16
A-89
Table A-92 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2 4 5 3 14 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 46% 2 4 5 3 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 38% 2 4 5 3 14 24 -11 0 20 0 0 34 9 64% 2 4 5 3 14 25 -11 0 20 0 0 34 9 59% 2 4 5 3 14 26 -12 0 20 0 0 34 8 54% 2 4 5 3 14 427 -413 0 20 400 0 434 7 2.7% 2 4 5 3 14 428 -414 0 20 400 0 434 6 2.5% 2 4 5 3 14 429 -415 0 20 400 0 434 5 2.3% 2 4 5 3 14 430 -416 0 20 400 0 434 4 2.1% 2 4 5 3 14 451 -437 0 40 400 0 454 3 1.8% 2 4 5 3 14 452 -438 0 40 400 0 454 2 1.6% 2 4 5 3 14 453 -439 0 40 400 0 454 1 1.3% 2 4 5 3 14 455 -441 5 40 400 0 459 4 2.2% 2 4 5 3 14 456 -442 5 40 400 0 459 3 1.9% 2 4 5 3 14 458 -444 5 40 400 0 459 1 1.7% 2 4 5 3 14 459 -446 10 40 400 0 464 4 2.5% 2 4 5 3 14 461 -447 10 40 400 0 464 3 2.2% 2 4 5 3 14 463 -449 10 40 400 0 464 1 1.9% 2 4 5 3 14 465 -451 15 40 400 0 469 4 2.6% 2 4 5 3 14 467 -453 15 40 400 0 469 2 2.3% 2009 10 2010 10 2011 11 10 2012 11 10 2013 12 10 2014 13 410 2015 13 410 2016 14 410 2017 15 410 2018 16 430 2019 17 430 2020 18 430 2021 19 430 2022 20 430 2023 21 430 2024 23 430 2025 24 430 2026 25 430 2027 27 430 2028 29 430
A-90
Table A-93 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 60 2010 67 2011 74 70 1 1 1 1 0 140 0 0 144 2012 82 70 2 4 4 2 0 140 0 0 153 2013 86 70 2 5 6 3 0 140 0 0 156 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 90 94 99 103 107 111 115 119 124 129 134 139 145 150 156 2,873 2,873 2,873 2,873 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3 6 7 4 0 140 2803 0 2963 3 8 9 5 0 140 2803 0 2968 4 9 10 6 0 140 2803 0 2972 4 10 12 6 0 140 2803 0 2976 5 12 13 7 0 280 2803 0 3120 5 13 15 8 0 280 2803 0 3124 6 14 16 9 0 280 2803 0 3128 4 11 13 7 15 280 2803 0 3133 5 12 14 7 16 280 2803 0 3138 5 13 15 8 17 280 2803 0 3142 4 11 13 7 29 280 2803 0 3147 5 12 14 7 31 280 2803 0 3153 5 13 15 8 34 280 2803 0 3158 5 11 13 7 45 280 2803 0 3164 5 12 14 7 48 280 2803 0 3170
8 19 22 12 0 0 0 0 60
9 21 24 13 0 0 0 0 67
Table A-94 Nevis Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 1.2 3.0 3.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0 9 2010 1.4 3.4 3.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 11 2011 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3 56 59 2012 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2013 0.5 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2014 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 41 1042 1,082 2015 0.7 1.7 1.9 1.0 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 42 0 42 2016 0.8 2.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 42 0 42 2017 0.9 2.2 2.5 1.4 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 43 0 43 2018 1.0 2.5 2.8 1.5 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 46 56 102 2019 1.2 2.8 3.1 1.7 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 47 0 47 2020 1.3 3.0 3.5 1.9 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 48 0 48 2021 1.0 2.4 2.7 1.5 2.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 49 2.25 51 2022 1.1 2.6 3.0 1.6 3.1 3.6 34.4 0.0 50 0 50 2023 1.2 2.9 3.3 1.8 3.4 3.6 34.4 0.0 50 0 50 2024 1.0 2.5 2.8 1.5 5.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 52 2.25 54 2025 1.1 2.7 3.0 1.6 6.3 3.6 34.4 0.0 53 0 53 2026 1.2 2.9 3.3 1.8 6.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 54 0 54 2027 1.1 2.6 2.9 1.6 9.2 3.6 34.4 0.0 55 2.25 58 2028 1.2 2.8 3.2 1.7 10.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 57 0 57
A-91
Table A-95 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance

12 6 37 21 0.1 76 76 0 0 0 0 76 0
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 79 -2 20 0 0 96 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 82 -5 20 0 0 96 15
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 85 -9 20 0 2 96 11
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 88 -12 20 0 3 96 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 91 -15 20 0 5 96 5
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 95 -19 20 0 6 96 1
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 98 -22 40 0 8 116 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 102 -26 40 0 9 116 14
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 106 -30 40 0 9 116 10
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 110 -34 40 0 11 116 6
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 114 -38 40 0 12 116 2
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 119 -42 60 0 12 136 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 123 -47 60 0 14 136 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 128 -52 60 0 14 136 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 133 -56 60 0 15 136 4
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 138 -62 80 0 15 156 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 143 -67 80 0 17 156 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 148 -72 80 0 17 156 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 154 -78 80 0 18 156 2
35.7% 65.0% 59.0% 53.2% 47.6% 42.2% 36.9% 59.4% 53.5% 47.9% 42.5% 37.3% 55.0% 49.3% 43.9% 38.6% 53.1% 47.5% 42.1% 36.9%
A-92
Table A-96 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance

53 28 169 94 0.1 0 0 0 345
42 22 133 74 0.1 85 0 0 356
43 23 137 76 0.1 87 0 0 367
44 23 140 78 0.1 89 0 4 378
45 24 143 79 0.1 91 0 8 390
46 24 146 81 0.1 93 0 13 402
47 25 149 83 0.1 95 0 17 415
39 20 123 68 0.1 157 0 21 428
40 21 126 70 0.1 160 0 25 442
41 22 130 72 0.1 165 0 25 455
42 22 133 74 0.1 169 0 29 470
43 23 136 75 0.1 173 0 34 484
37 20 118 65 0.1 225 0 34 500
38 20 121 67 0.1 231 0 38 515
39 21 125 69 0.1 239 0 38 531
40 21 128 71 0.1 245 0 42 548
36 19 114 63 0.1 291 0 42 565
37 19 117 65 0.1 298 0 46 583
38 20 121 67 0.1 308 0 46 601
39 21 124 69 0.1 316 0 50 620
Table A-97 St. Lucia Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs 2009 2010 6.5 3.4 20.3 11.2 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 53 9.6 62 2011 7.2 3.8 22.3 12.4 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 58 0 58 2012 8.0 4.2 24.8 13.8 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 65 2013 8.4 4.4 26.0 14.4 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.1 68 2014 8.9 4.7 27.7 15.3 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.1 72 2015 9.4 4.9 29.1 16.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.2 76 2016 7.9 4.1 24.5 13.6 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.2 78 2017 8.1 4.2 25.1 13.9 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.3 80 2018 8.4 4.4 26.0 14.4 0.0 29.1 0.0 0.3 83 0 83 2019 8.6 4.5 26.7 14.8 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.3 85 2020 8.8 4.6 27.4 15.2 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.4 87 2021 7.8 4.1 24.1 13.4 0.0 40.6 0.0 0.4 90 9.6 100 2022 8.0 4.2 24.9 13.8 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.4 93 1.875 95 2023 8.3 4.3 25.6 14.2 0.0 43.1 0.0 0.4 96 0 96 2024 8.6 4.5 26.6 14.7 0.0 44.8 0.0 0.5 100 1.875 101 2025 7.8 4.1 24.1 13.3 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.5 104 9.6 113 2026 8.0 4.2 24.9 13.8 0.0 55.9 0.0 0.5 107 1.875 109 2027 8.4 4.4 26.1 14.4 0.0 58.5 0.0 0.5 112 0 112 2028 8.8 4.6 27.3 15.1 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.6 118 1.875 120
1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 11.48 1.875 67 70 74 78 89 82
1.875 1.875 87 89
A-93
Table A-98 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Capacity Balance
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 36 22 0 0 0 58 22
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 38 20 0 0 0 58 20
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 41 17 0 0 2 58 17
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 44 14 0 0 2 58 14
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 47 11 0 0 3 58 11
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 50 8 0 0 3 58 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 53 5 0 0 5 58 5
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 57 1 0 0 5 58 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 61 -3 10 0 6 68 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 65 -7 10 0 6 68 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 70 -12 20 0 8 78 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 75 -17 20 0 8 78 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 80 -22 30 0 9 88 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 85 -27 30 0 9 88 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 91 -33 40 0 11 98 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 98 -39 40 0 11 98 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 104 -46 50 0 12 108 4
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 111 -53 60 0 12 118 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 119 -61 70 0 14 128 9
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 127 -69 70 0 14 128 1
118.8% 104.7% 91.5% 79.1% 67.5% 56.7% 46.6% 37.1% 50.3% 40.6% 50.9% 41.1% 48.9% 39.3% 45.1% 35.7% 39.9% 43.0% 45.1% 35.7%
A-94
Table A-99 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Energy Balance
31 7 98 7 6 7 0 0 0 0 156
33 7 105 7 6 8 0 0 0 0 167
35 7 110 8 6 8 0 0 0 4 178
37 7 118 8 7 9 0 0 0 4 191
39 7 124 9 7 9 0 0 0 8 204
42 7 133 9 8 10 0 0 0 8 218
44 7 140 10 8 11 1 0 0 13 233
48 7 151 11 9 11 1 0 0 13 249
42 7 134 9 8 10 0 39 0 17 266
46 7 144 10 8 11 1 42 0 17 284
42 7 132 9 8 10 0 76 0 21 304
45 7 142 10 8 11 1 82 0 21 325
42 7 132 9 8 10 0 114 0 25 348
45 7 142 10 8 11 1 123 0 25 372
43 7 135 9 8 10 0 156 0 29 397
46 7 145 10 9 11 1 168 0 29 425
44 7 140 10 8 10 1 201 0 34 454
43 7 137 10 8 10 1 237 0 34 485
42 7 134 9 8 10 0 270 0 38 519
46 7 144 10 8 11 1 291 0 38 555
Table A-100 St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 4.7 0.2 14.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2010 5.2 0.2 15.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 5.7 0.2 17.2 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 1.875 29 2012 6.7 0.2 20.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2013 7.2 0.2 21.4 1.7 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 34 1.875 36 2014 8.0 0.2 23.9 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 38 0 38 2015 8.7 0.2 25.9 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 41 1.875 43 2016 9.4 0.2 28.0 2.2 1.9 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 44 0 44 2017 8.4 0.2 25.1 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 7.1 0.0 0.2 47 6.375 53 2018 9.0 0.2 27.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 7.6 0.0 0.2 50 0 50 2019 8.4 0.2 24.9 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 14.1 0.0 0.2 54 6.375 60 2020 9.0 0.2 26.8 2.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 15.2 0.0 0.2 58 0 58 2021 8.5 0.2 25.3 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 21.4 0.0 0.3 62 6.375 68 2022 9.2 0.2 27.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.1 23.2 0.0 0.3 67 0 67 2023 8.7 0.2 25.9 2.1 1.8 2.2 0.1 29.3 0.0 0.3 71 6.375 77 2024 9.5 0.2 28.2 2.2 1.9 2.4 0.1 31.9 0.0 0.3 77 0 77 2025 9.2 0.2 27.4 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.1 38.8 0.0 0.4 83 6.375 89 2026 9.1 0.2 27.2 2.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 46.1 0.0 0.4 90 4.5 94 2027 9.1 0.2 27.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 53.5 0.0 0.4 97 6.375 103 2028 9.9 0.2 29.6 2.3 2.0 2.5 0.1 58.7 0.0 0.4 106 0 106
A-95
Table A-101 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,578 39 109 880 17 3 58 27 0 2,980 2012 72 223 3 1,616 43 129 900 19 5 65 32 0 3,107 2013 73 234 4 1,697 45 145 963 21 5 68 34 0 3,290 2014 77 251 25 1,790 49 166 963 22 41 72 38 -725 2,770 2015 82 265 26 1,776 53 188 959 24 42 76 41 -748 2,784 2016 85 274 26 1,845 55 209 939 25 42 78 44 -755 2,869 2017 88 282 27 1,820 58 230 979 26 43 80 47 -758 2,923 2018 91 291 28 1,893 61 254 960 2 46 83 50 -757 3,002 2019 94 301 28 1,894 64 282 1,002 4 47 85 54 -763 3,091 2020 97 307 29 1,941 67 312 975 5 48 87 58 -761 3,164 2021 100 318 30 1,921 71 329 971 6 49 90 62 -768 3,177 2022 104 327 31 1,993 75 347 944 7 50 93 67 -775 3,262 2023 106 333 31 2,059 78 363 978 8 50 96 71 -774 3,402 2024 111 345 32 2,113 83 385 912 10 52 100 77 -782 3,438 2025 115 359 33 2,227 89 409 953 11 53 104 83 -790 3,645 2026 120 370 34 2,283 93 433 893 13 54 107 90 -797 3,693 2027 124 383 35 2,356 100 460 933 15 55 112 97 -809 3,861 2028 131 402 36 2,485 107 494 950 16 57 118 106 -824 4,078
Table A-102 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 150 0 15 26 0 56 0 2 18 287 2012 8 14 56 465 4 15 287 0 0 2 0 2 853 2013 8 7 0 38 6 15 15 0 0 2 2 2 95 2014 4 4 643 38 0 6 147 0 1,042 2 0 1,105 2,989 2015 0 4 0 323 2 15 235 0 0 2 2 28 610 2016 0 4 0 38 5 15 235 0 0 11 0 28 336 2017 0 4 0 345 0 15 15 0 0 2 6 28 415 2018 0 4 0 38 2 15 235 0 56 0 0 28 378 2019 2 4 0 323 5 25 15 0 0 2 6 28 409 2020 5 11 0 38 2 15 235 0 0 2 0 28 335 2021 0 4 0 323 0 15 235 0 2 10 6 28 623 2022 0 11 0 60 5 15 235 0 0 2 0 28 356 2023 6 11 0 38 2 25 15 0 0 0 6 28 131 2024 0 11 0 323 5 15 455 0 2 2 0 28 840 2025 0 4 0 38 0 25 15 0 0 10 6 28 125 2026 5 13 0 323 6 15 455 0 0 2 5 28 851 2027 2 13 0 323 0 25 15 2 2 0 6 28 417 2028 0 4 0 38 5 25 235 0 0 2 0 28 336 Salvage Value 23 88 369 2,467 30 211 2,356 2 623 35 35 559 6,797
A-96
Table A-103 Interconnection/Renewable Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Dominica - Martinique & Dominica - Guadeloupe Dominican Republic - Haiti Nevis - Puerto Rico Nevis - St. Kitts Total 0 0 18 18 2 2 2 2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Salvage Value
119 250 734 2 1,105
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
4 5 17 2 28
59 125 367 7 559
A-97
A.4
INTEGRATED SCENARIO
Tables A-104 to A-139 present system analysis results for the Integrated Scenario. As for all Scenarios, for each country (or island) results are presented in three tables: capacity balance, energy balance, and cost summary tables. Scenario summary tables are presented at the end. A.4.1 Antigua and Barbuda
Tables A-104 to A-106 present system analysis results for Antigua and Barbuda. 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 results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.2 Barbados
Tables A-107 to A-109 present system analysis results for Barbados. 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 results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.3 Dominica
Tables A-110 to A-112 present Integrated Scenario system analysis results for Dominica. This Scenario assumes the same geothermal additions as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The key difference from the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario is the assumed fuel saving of energy exports to Martinique and Guadalupe. The Integrated Scenario assumes construction of a natural gas pipeline serving those two countries, so fuel savings on Martinique and Guadalupe are reduced because they are replacing natural gas based generation. A.4.4 Dominican Republic
Tables A-113 to A-115 present system analysis results for Dominican Republic for 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 does not assume interconnection with Haitis system. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.5 Grenada
Tables A-116 to A-118 present system analysis results for Grenada for 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. Results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.6 Haiti
Tables A-119 to A-121 present system analysis results for Haiti for 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. Interconnection with the Dominican Republic is assumed not to occur. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.7 Jamaica
Tables A-122 to A-124 present system analysis results for Jamaica for 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. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.8 St. Kitts and Nevis
Tables A-125 to A-127 present system analysis results for St. Kitts for the Integrated Scenario. This Scenario assumes the same interconnection with Nevis by 2011 and no new generation units built on St. Kitts, as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. The results are the same as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. Tables A-128 to A-130 present corresponding system analysis results for Nevis for the Integrated Scenario. Again this scenario assumes that Nevis will be interconnected with St. Kitts by 2011 and the two 20 MW geothermal units at Nevis will supply St. Kitts and Nevis. Additionally, two 200 MW geothermal units will be built at Nevis in 2014 to supply Puerto Rico. The results are the same as in the Interconnection/Renewable Scenario. A.4.9 St. Lucia
Tables A-131 to A-133 present system analysis results for St. Lucia for 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. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.10 St. Vincent and Grenadines Tables A-134 to A-136 present system analysis results for St. Vincent and Grenadines for 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. The results show combined system and cost impacts (i.e., savings) of fuel and renewable options. A.4.11 Total System Costs Tables A-137 to A-139 present total system production, investment and interconnection cost for the Integrated Scenario. Production Cost Summary table shows fuel savings associated for energy exports to Martinique, Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico. Investment Cost Summary and Interconnection Cost Summary tables include yearly costs associated with building assumed interconnections.
Table A-104 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 73 17 0 0 0 0 90 17 66%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 77 13 0 0 0 0 90 13 58%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 81 9 10 0 0 0 100 19 67%
15 26 4 17 8 0 13 7 90 85 5 20 0 0 3 110 25 75%
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 88 -10 30 0 0 6 107 20
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 90 -13 30 0 0 9 107 17
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 93 -16 30 0 0 9 107 14
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 96 -19 30 0 0 9 107 11
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 99 -21 30 0 0 9 107 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 102 -24 30 0 0 9 107 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 104 -27 30 0 0 11 107 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 108 -31 30 10 0 11 117 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 111 -34 30 10 0 11 117 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 114 -37 30 10 0 11 117 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 118 -40 30 20 0 12 127 10
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 121 -44 30 20 0 12 127 6
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 125 -47 30 20 0 12 127 3
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 128 -51 30 30 0 12 137 9
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 132 -55 30 30 0 14 137 5
15 26 4 17 8 0 0 7 77 136 -59 30 30 0 14 137 1
65% 60.5% 55.8% 51.2% 46.8% 42.6% 38.5% 46.9% 42.6% 38.5% 45.9% 41.8% 37.8% 44.4% 40.3% 36.3%
A-100
Table A-105 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-106 Antigua and Barbuda Integrated Scenario Cost Summary

Year 2009 Fuel and O&M Costs APC (Pant) 7.8 APC Blk Pine 14.4 Baker 2.1 APC Jt Vent 9.3 Victor 4.2 WIOC 0.0 Aggreko Rental 6.8 Barbuda 3.9 Casada Gardens 10 MW CFB 10 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0 48 2010 8.0 14.7 2.1 9.4 4.3 0.0 7.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0 49 2011 7.6 14.0 2.0 9.0 4.1 0.0 6.6 3.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 4.5 57 2012 9.5 17.5 2.5 11.3 5.1 0.0 8.3 4.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 72 8.25 81 2013 9.8 18.1 2.6 11.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 73 8.25 81 2014 10.4 19.1 2.8 12.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 77 3.75 81 2015 11.0 20.2 2.9 13.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.5 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 82 0 82 2016 11.4 21.0 3.0 13.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 85 0 85 2017 11.8 21.7 3.1 14.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 88 0 88 2018 12.2 22.5 3.3 14.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 91 0 91 2019 12.6 23.1 3.3 14.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 94 1.875 95 2020 11.4 21.0 3.0 13.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 23.9 8.0 0.0 0.3 93 25.5 119 2021 11.8 21.7 3.1 14.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 5.8 24.7 8.3 0.0 0.3 96 0 96 2022 12.2 22.4 3.2 14.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 25.6 8.6 0.0 0.3 99 0 99 2023 10.9 20.1 2.9 13.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 22.9 15.4 0.0 0.4 97 27.38 124 2024 11.3 20.8 3.0 13.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 23.7 15.9 0.0 0.4 100 0 100 2025 11.6 21.4 3.1 13.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 24.4 16.4 0.0 0.4 103 0 103 2026 12.5 20.9 3.3 13.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.2 23.8 18.6 0.0 0.4 106 25.5 131 2027 12.9 21.6 3.4 13.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 24.5 18.8 0.0 0.4 109 1.875 110 2028 13.6 22.5 3.6 14.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 25.6 19.1 0.0 0.4 113 0 113
A-101
Table A-107 Barbados Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) Trent 20 MW LSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 170 2010 176 2011 182 2012 188 2013 195 2014 201 2015 208 2016 216 2017 223 2018 231 2019 239 2020 247 2021 256 2022 265 2023 274 2024 284 2025 294 2026 304 2027 314 2028 325
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 221 18 0 0 0 238 18 40%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 228 10 0 0 0 238 10 36%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 236 2 32 0 0 270 34 49%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 245 -6 64 0 0 302 58 61%
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 253 -15 80 0 0 318 65
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 262 -23 80 0 3 318 57
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 271 -33 80 0 6 318 47
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 280 -42 80 0 9 318 38
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 290 -52 80 0 12 318 28
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 300 -62 80 0 15 318 18
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 311 -72 80 0 18 318 8
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 322 -83 96 0 21 334 13
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 333 -94 96 0 24 334 2
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 344 -106 112 0 27 350 6
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 356 -118 128 0 30 366 10
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 369 -130 144 0 33 382 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 382 -143 144 0 36 382 1
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 395 -157 144 20 39 402 7
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 409 -170 144 40 42 422 14
25 13 13 61 40 86 238 423 -185 144 40 45 422 -1
64% 58.1% 52.8% 47.6% 42.6% 37.8% 33.2% 35.2% 30.6% 32.3% 33.6% 34.8% 30.2% 32.4% 34.3% 29.8%
A-102
Table A-108 Barbados Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Table A-109 Barbados Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Spring Garden Sewall Trent 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 16.4 8.7 8.7 40.1 26.3 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 0 163 2010 18.9 10.0 10.0 46.1 30.2 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 188 0 188 2011 18.0 9.5 9.5 43.8 28.7 68.7 23.6 0.0 0.0 202 14.4 216 2012 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 46.7 0.0 0.0 223 14.4 237 2013 17.8 9.4 9.4 43.3 28.4 67.9 58.4 0.0 0.0 234 7.2 242 2014 7.8 4.1 4.1 18.9 12.4 28.7 25.7 0.0 0.1 102 3.75 106 2015 8.0 4.2 4.2 19.5 12.8 29.5 26.4 0.0 0.2 105 3.75 108 2016 8.2 4.3 4.3 20.0 13.1 30.4 27.2 0.0 0.3 108 3.75 112 2017 8.5 4.5 4.5 20.7 13.6 31.5 28.0 0.0 0.4 112 3.75 115 2018 8.8 4.6 4.6 21.5 14.1 32.7 29.1 0.0 0.5 116 3.75 120 2019 9.1 4.8 4.8 22.2 14.6 33.9 30.1 0.0 0.6 120 3.75 124 2020 8.6 4.6 4.6 21.1 13.8 32.1 34.3 0.0 0.7 120 10.95 131 2021 8.6 4.6 4.6 21.1 13.8 32.2 34.3 0.0 0.8 120 3.75 124 2022 8.4 4.5 4.5 20.6 13.5 31.3 39.1 0.0 0.9 123 2023 8.2 4.3 4.3 20.1 13.2 30.5 43.6 0.0 0.9 125 2024 8.3 4.4 4.4 20.3 13.3 30.8 49.5 0.0 1.0 132 2025 8.7 4.6 4.6 21.3 14.0 32.5 52.0 0.0 1.1 139 3.75 143 2026 8.6 4.6 4.6 21.0 13.8 32.0 51.3 7.4 1.2 145 2027 8.5 4.5 4.5 20.8 13.7 31.7 50.8 14.7 1.3 150 2028 8.9 4.7 4.7 21.8 14.3 33.2 53.1 15.3 1.4 157 3.75 161
10.95 10.95 10.95 134 136 143
13.35 13.35 158 164
A-103
Table A-110 Dominica Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 15 2010 15 2011 16 2012 16 2013 17 2014 17 185 5 16 21 207 -186 0 20 185 0 226 19 2015 18 185 5 16 21 208 -187 0 20 185 0 226 18 2016 18 185 5 16 21 209 -188 0 20 185 0 226 17 2017 19 185 5 16 21 209 -188 0 20 185 0 226 17 2018 19 185 5 16 21 210 -189 0 20 185 0 226 16 2019 20 185 5 16 21 210 -189 0 20 185 0 226 16 2020 20 185 5 16 21 211 -190 0 20 185 0 226 15 2021 21 185 5 16 21 212 -191 0 20 185 0 226 14 2022 21 185 5 16 21 213 -192 0 20 185 0 226 13 9.6% 2023 22 185 5 16 21 213 -192 0 20 185 0 226 13 9.3% 2024 22 185 5 16 21 214 -193 0 20 185 0 226 12 9.0% 2025 23 185 5 16 21 215 -194 0 20 185 0 226 11 8.7% 2026 24 185 5 16 21 216 -195 0 20 185 0 226 10 8.3% 2027 24 185 5 16 21 216 -195 0 20 185 0 226 10 8.0% 2028 25 185 5 16 21 217 -196 0 20 185 0 226 9 7.7%
5 16 21 20 1 0 0 0 0 21 1 40%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 36%
5 16 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 32%
5 16 21 22 -1 0 20 0 0 41 19
5 16 21 23 -2 0 20 0 0 41 18
152% 145% 11.8% 11.5% 11.3% 11.0% 10.7% 10.5% 10.2% 9.9%
A-104
Table A-111 Dominica Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Hydro three plants Thermal two plants 5 MW MSD Geo Non-Export Geo Export Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 87 2010 89 2011 91 2012 94 2013 96 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 99 101 104 106 109 112 114 117 120 123 126 129 133 136 139 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 1,296 22 7 0 70 1296 0 1395 22 9 0 70 1296 0 1397 22 12 0 70 1296 0 1400 22 14 0 70 1296 0 1403 22 17 0 70 1296 0 1405 22 20 0 70 1296 0 1408 22 22 0 70 1296 0 1411 22 25 0 70 1296 0 1414 22 28 0 70 1296 0 1417 22 31 0 70 1296 0 1420 22 34 0 70 1296 0 1423 22 37 0 70 1296 0 1426 22 41 0 70 1296 0 1429 22 44 0 70 1296 0 1432 22 47 0 70 1296 0 1436
22 65 0 0 0 0 87
22 67 0 0 0 0 89
22 70 0 0 0 0 91
22 2 0 70 0 0 94
22 4 0 70 0 0 96
Table A-112 Dominica Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
A-105
Table A-11313 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 2,941 -58 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,059 -176 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,180 -297 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,300 -417 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,409 -526 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,504 -621 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,620 -737 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,740 -857 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,864 -981 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 3,993 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,125 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,261 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,402 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,547 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,698 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 4,853 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,013 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,179 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,350 290 128 101 236 35 0 100 72 33 28 39 100 46 102 300 185 107 88 17 50 43 73 100 42 32 30 36 387 85 2,883 5,526 2009 2,353 0 2010 2,447 0 2011 2,544 0 2012 2,640 0 2013 2,727 0 2014 2,803 0 2015 2,896 0 2016 2,992 0 2017 3,091 0 2018 3,194 0 2019 3,300 0 2020 3,409 0 2021 3,522 0 2022 3,638 0 2023 3,758 0 2024 3,882 0 2025 4,010 0 2026 4,143 0 2027 4,280 0 2028 4,421 0
-1,110 -1,242 -1,378 -1,519 -1,664 -1,815 -1,970 -2,130 -2,296 -2,467 -2,643
A-106
New Capacity (MW) Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,033 92 29% 50 100 17 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3,137 78 28% 50 100 17 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 30 3,182 2 25% 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 60 3,544 244 34% 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 90 3,544 135 30% 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 305 0 0 100 120 3,544 40 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 0 0 100 150 3,849 229 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 0 0 100 180 3,849 109 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 305 50 100 210 4,204 340 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 305 50 100 240 4,204 211 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 50 100 270 4,509 384 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 50 100 300 4,509 248 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 0 610 610 50 100 330 4,509 107 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 300 610 610 100 100 360 4,859 312 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 300 610 610 100 100 390 4,859 161 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 600 610 610 100 100 420 5,159 306 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 600 610 610 100 100 450 5,159 146 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 900 610 610 100 100 480 5,459 280 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 900 610 610 100 100 510 5,459 109 50 100 17 87 45 57 0 1,200 610 610 100 100 540 5,759 233
26.4% 32.9% 28.6% 36.0% 31.6% 36.6% 32.3% 28.0% 33.6% 29.3% 32.9% 28.6% 31.8% 27.6% 30.3%
A-107
Table A-114 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 12,638 13,142 13,663 14,179 14,646 15,054 15,554 16,070 16,601 17,154 17,724 18,309 18,914 19,539 20,184 20,851 21,539 22,251 22,986 23,745 Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Generation (GWh) Andres 1709 1476 1550 1202 1257 1303 1145 1189 1044 1075 975 1013 1065 981 1013 933 946 884 897 838 Itabo 1004 820 859 643 667 688 604 626 549 569 523 541 560 513 532 502 521 495 514 492 Itabo 706 583 609 459 475 490 430 446 391 406 372 385 398 365 379 357 371 352 365 349 Los Mina 865 1013 1036 851 873 890 777 804 714 739 673 696 721 666 690 645 663 626 642 606 Itabo 73 164 169 158 163 168 148 153 139 144 132 137 142 133 138 130 135 129 134 129 Higuamo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Haina 362 410 425 391 406 419 368 381 345 358 329 340 352 329 341 321 333 317 329 314 Haina 267 284 293 267 277 286 251 260 235 244 224 231 239 224 232 218 226 215 223 213 San Pedro 123 138 143 132 137 141 124 128 116 120 111 114 119 111 115 108 112 107 111 106 Puerto Plata 103 116 120 110 114 118 104 107 97 101 92 96 99 93 96 90 94 89 93 88 Puerto Plata 146 163 169 155 162 167 146 152 137 142 131 135 140 131 136 128 133 126 131 125 Haina 237 465 479 442 455 468 412 426 386 400 368 382 395 370 383 362 376 358 371 356 Barahona 302 252 263 199 206 212 187 193 170 176 161 167 173 158 164 155 161 153 158 151 Sultana DE 487 363 367 310 318 325 284 294 264 273 250 258 267 248 257 242 250 237 245 233 CESPM. 1057 1257 1274 1081 1109 1133 990 1024 919 953 872 903 933 868 899 847 876 831 858 818 San Felipe 515 771 789 702 722 740 649 672 606 628 576 598 618 577 598 564 585 556 575 551 Palamara 523 401 407 348 358 367 320 332 298 309 283 292 302 281 291 274 283 269 278 264 La Vega 425 328 333 285 293 300 263 272 244 253 232 240 248 231 239 225 232 220 228 217 CEPP 75 62 63 55 57 58 51 53 47 49 45 47 48 45 46 44 45 43 44 42 CEPP 226 188 191 166 172 176 154 160 144 149 137 141 146 136 141 133 137 130 135 128 Seaboard 202 161 164 141 146 149 131 135 122 126 116 119 124 115 119 112 116 110 114 108 Seaboard 369 275 279 237 243 249 218 225 202 209 192 198 205 190 197 186 192 182 188 179 Monte Rio 516 377 380 321 330 337 295 305 274 284 260 268 277 258 267 251 259 246 254 241 Metaldom 202 157 160 137 141 145 126 131 118 122 112 115 119 111 115 108 112 106 110 104 Laesa 116 123 127 116 120 124 109 113 102 106 97 100 104 97 101 95 98 93 97 92 Maxon 75 118 121 108 112 115 101 104 94 97 89 93 96 90 93 88 91 86 89 86 Falconbridge 129 144 149 136 142 146 128 133 120 125 115 119 123 115 119 112 116 110 115 109 Reservoir Hydro 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 1255 Non Reser Hydro 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276
A-108
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 0 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 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 1561 1618 3056 3176 4532 4710 6020 0 0 1983 2060 2127 3742 3873 3394 3518 3235 3350 3466 3174 3289 3107 3229 3072 3192 3060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1697 1759 3235 3350 3466 3174 3289 3107 3229 3072 3192 3060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 170 154 160 167 308 318 295 301 283 289 271 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 0 84 168 252 336 420 505 589 673 757 841 925 1009 1093 1177 1261 1346 1430 1514 13142 13663 14179 14646 15054 15554 16070 16601 17154 17724 18309 18914 19539 20184 20851 21539 22251 22986 23745
A-109
Table A-115 Dominican Republic Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Andres Itabo Itabo Los Mina Itabo Higuamo Haina Haina San Pedro Puerto Plata Puerto Plata Haina Barahona Sultana DE CESPM. San Felipe Palamara La Vega CEPP CEPP Seaboard Seaboard Monte Rio Metaldom Laesa Maxon Falconbridge Reservoir Hydro Non Reser Hydro Pinalto Palomino Hatillo et al Las Placetas Arbonito Hondo Valle et al 300 MW CC 300 MW ConvCoal Montecristi Haltillo-Azua 50 MW GT Montafongo,Bani,El Norte Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 140.2 58.8 45.0 114.0 16.0 0.0 45.0 32.1 15.2 12.7 17.9 47.1 20.3 43.2 145.0 88.6 47.7 39.0 7.4 22.3 19.2 32.7 44.6 18.7 14.1 13.5 16.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,149 0 1,149 2010 123.0 47.3 36.8 133.6 36.4 0.0 80.5 53.4 26.9 22.5 31.8 94.6 16.7 50.3 175.9 133.4 57.9 47.6 9.6 29.1 24.2 38.7 51.7 23.0 23.4 21.3 28.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1,458 385 1,843 2011 126.1 49.1 38.1 133.7 40.4 0.0 90.8 60.0 30.4 25.4 35.9 104.8 17.3 55.0 190.9 146.1 63.7 52.4 10.6 32.2 26.7 42.4 56.6 25.3 26.2 23.4 31.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.9 1,578 150 1,728 2012 99.7 38.0 29.7 110.6 41.3 0.0 92.4 60.4 30.9 25.9 36.5 105.9 13.6 51.5 178.5 142.7 60.4 49.8 10.3 31.1 25.5 40.0 53.1 24.1 26.4 23.0 32.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 87.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.9 1,567 790 2,357 2013 101.7 39.1 30.6 110.8 43.8 0.0 100.1 65.3 33.5 28.0 39.6 112.2 14.0 55.0 188.0 150.7 64.7 53.3 11.0 33.4 27.4 42.8 56.7 25.8 28.5 24.3 34.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 90.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.8 1,653 37.5 1,690 2014 104.0 40.3 31.5 111.8 47.2 0.0 108.0 70.4 36.2 30.3 42.8 120.6 14.4 58.5 200.1 161.1 69.1 56.9 11.8 35.7 29.3 45.6 60.4 27.6 30.7 26.0 37.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 93.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.8 1,749 37.5 1,787 2015 92.4 36.0 28.2 98.0 42.9 0.0 98.1 64.0 32.9 27.5 38.9 109.6 12.8 53.1 181.6 146.6 62.7 51.7 10.7 32.4 26.6 41.4 54.8 25.1 27.9 23.7 34.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 166.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 4.7 1,669 647.5 2,317 2016 95.7 37.3 29.2 101.3 44.8 0.0 102.4 66.7 34.3 28.7 40.6 114.5 13.3 55.2 189.2 152.8 65.3 53.8 11.2 33.8 27.7 43.1 57.1 26.1 29.1 24.7 35.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 172.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.7 1,736 37.5 1,774 2017 85.5 33.2 26.1 91.0 40.8 0.0 93.5 60.9 31.3 26.2 37.0 104.0 11.9 50.2 171.1 138.8 59.3 48.9 10.2 30.8 25.2 39.2 51.9 23.7 26.6 22.4 32.4 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 153.5 76.7 16.5 3.1 6.6 1,670 670 2,340 2018 88.7 34.4 26.9 95.1 42.4 0.0 97.1 63.2 32.5 27.2 38.4 108.2 12.3 52.0 177.6 144.2 61.5 50.7 10.5 31.9 26.1 40.6 53.7 24.6 27.6 23.3 33.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 158.8 79.4 17.2 3.1 7.6 1,732 37.5 1,770 2019 81.8 31.6 24.8 87.7 39.3 0.0 90.0 58.6 30.2 25.2 35.6 100.3 11.3 48.2 164.6 133.8 57.0 47.0 9.8 29.6 24.2 37.7 49.8 22.8 25.6 21.6 31.2 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 145.7 145.7 15.8 3.1 8.5 1,680 647.5 2,327 2020 83.2 32.2 25.2 88.8 41.0 0.0 92.6 60.3 31.0 25.9 36.7 104.6 11.5 49.5 170.7 139.1 58.6 48.3 10.0 30.4 24.9 38.7 51.1 23.4 26.3 22.5 32.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 148.6 148.6 16.0 3.1 9.5 1,726 37.5 1,763 2021 84.9 33.2 26.0 89.5 42.7 0.0 96.8 63.0 32.4 27.1 38.3 108.9 11.9 51.5 177.2 144.5 61.0 50.3 10.5 31.7 25.9 40.2 53.2 24.4 27.5 23.4 33.5 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 153.3 153.3 16.3 3.1 10.4 1,787 37.5 1,825 2022 79.1 30.9 24.3 83.3 40.4 0.0 91.5 59.5 30.7 25.6 36.2 102.9 11.1 48.6 167.0 136.6 57.5 47.4 9.9 29.9 24.4 37.9 50.2 23.0 26.0 22.1 31.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 70.1 142.6 142.6 30.2 3.1 11.4 1,769 660 2,429 2023 81.6 31.8 25.0 86.3 41.7 0.0 94.5 61.5 31.7 26.5 37.4 106.2 11.4 50.1 172.1 140.8 59.3 48.9 10.2 30.9 25.2 39.1 51.8 23.7 26.8 22.8 32.7 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 72.2 146.9 146.9 31.3 3.1 12.3 1,824 37.5 1,862 2024 78.0 30.1 23.7 83.5 40.0 0.0 90.0 58.5 30.2 25.2 35.6 101.8 10.8 47.7 164.8 135.0 56.5 46.6 9.7 29.4 24.0 37.3 49.3 22.6 25.6 21.8 31.1 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 136.6 138.8 138.8 30.0 3.1 13.2 1,811 637.5 2,449 2025 80.8 30.8 24.2 87.7 42.0 0.0 94.2 61.2 31.6 26.4 37.3 107.0 11.0 49.6 172.1 141.3 58.9 48.6 10.1 30.6 25.0 38.8 51.3 23.6 26.7 22.9 32.6 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 140.0 142.3 142.3 31.3 3.1 14.2 1,881 37.5 1,919 2026 77.6 29.4 23.1 84.9 40.4 0.0 90.3 58.7 30.3 25.3 35.8 102.8 10.5 47.6 165.3 135.9 56.5 46.6 9.7 29.4 24.0 37.2 49.2 22.6 25.6 22.0 31.2 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 199.9 135.5 135.5 30.2 3.1 15.1 1,873 637.5 2,510 2027 80.1 30.0 23.5 88.7 42.5 0.0 95.1 61.8 31.9 26.7 37.7 108.1 10.7 49.7 172.7 142.4 59.1 48.7 10.2 30.8 25.2 38.9 51.4 23.7 27.0 23.1 32.9 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 204.2 138.4 138.4 31.4 3.1 16.1 1,945 37.5 1,983 2028 76.6 28.4 22.3 85.4 41.8 0.0 92.5 60.0 31.0 25.9 36.6 106.3 10.2 48.2 168.8 139.7 57.3 47.3 9.9 29.9 24.4 37.7 49.8 22.9 26.2 22.6 32.0 21.8 4.8 2.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 1.8 2.5 0.0 257.8 131.1 131.1 30.0 3.1 17.0 1,945 637.5 2,583
A-110
Table A-116 Grenada Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

17 16 16 49 42 7 0 0 0 49 7 57%
17 16 16 49 44 4 0 0 0 49 4 49%
17 16 16 49 46 2 0 0 0 49 2 41%
17 16 16 49 49 0 0 0 3 49 0 34%
17 16 16 49 52 -3 0 10 5 59 7
17 16 16 49 54 -6 0 10 5 59 4
17 16 16 49 57 -9 0 10 6 59 1
17 16 16 49 60 -12 0 20 6 69 8
17 16 16 49 64 -15 0 20 6 69 5
17 16 16 49 67 -18 0 20 8 69 2
17 16 16 49 71 -22 0 30 8 79 8
17 16 16 49 74 -26 0 30 9 79 4
17 16 16 49 78 -30 0 30 9 79 0
17 16 16 49 83 -34 0 40 9 89 6
17 16 16 49 87 -39 0 40 11 89 1
17 16 16 49 92 -43 0 50 11 99 7
17 16 16 49 97 -48 0 50 11 99 2
17 16 16 49 102 -53 0 60 12 109 7
17 16 16 49 107 -59 0 60 12 109 1
17 16 16 49 113 -65 0 70 12 119 5
53% 45.4% 37.9% 53.3% 45.5% 38.0% 50.1% 42.4% 35.2% 44.6% 37.2% 45.0% 37.6% 43.8% 36.4% 41.4%
A-111
Table A-117 Grenada Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year 2009 2010 209 2011 220 2012 232 2013 244 2014 257 2015 270 2016 285 2017 300 2018 316 2019 333 2020 350 2021 369 2022 389 2023 409 2024 431 2025 454 2026 478 2027 504 2028 530
71 69 69 0 0 0 209
75 73 73 0 0 0 220
76 74 74 0 0 8 232
56 54 54 0 67 13 244
65 63 63 0 53 13 257
66 64 64 0 59 17 270
56 54 54 0 105 17 285
58 56 56 0 113 17 300
59 57 57 0 121 21 316
51 49 49 0 163 21 333
52 50 50 0 173 25 350
54 52 52 0 186 25 369
47 46 46 0 225 25 389
48 47 47 0 238 29 409
43 42 42 0 275 29 431
44 43 43 0 295 29 454
40 38 38 0 328 34 478
41 39 39 0 351 34 504
53 51 51 0 342 34 530
Table A-118 Grenada Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Queens Park Queens Park Queens Park 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 10.9 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2010 11.8 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 35 2011 13.3 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 39 2012 14.7 14.2 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 43 3.75 47 2013 11.2 10.9 10.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 34 27.38 61 2014 13.5 13.1 13.1 0.0 8.8 0.1 49 0 49 2015 14.2 13.8 13.8 0.0 9.2 0.2 51 2016 12.1 11.7 11.7 0.0 15.7 0.2 51 2017 12.6 12.2 12.2 0.0 16.3 0.2 53 0 53 2018 12.9 12.5 12.5 0.0 16.8 0.2 55 2019 11.2 10.9 10.9 0.0 21.8 0.2 55 2020 11.5 11.1 11.1 0.0 22.3 0.3 56 1.875 58 2021 11.9 11.6 11.6 0.0 23.3 0.3 59 0 59 2022 10.6 10.3 10.3 0.0 27.6 0.3 59 25.5 85 2023 10.9 10.5 10.5 0.0 28.3 0.3 61 2024 9.8 9.5 9.5 0.0 32.0 0.3 61 2025 10.2 9.9 9.9 0.0 33.2 0.3 64 0 64 2026 9.3 9.0 9.0 0.0 36.3 0.4 64 27.38 91 2027 9.6 9.3 9.3 0.0 37.6 0.4 66 0 66 2028 12.7 12.3 12.3 0.0 36.1 0.4 74 25.5 99
1.875 25.5 53 77
1.875 25.5 57 81
1.875 25.5 62 87
A-112
Table A-119 Haiti Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 308 -153 30 30 100 0 315 7 33%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 324 -169 30 30 120 5 335 11 35%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 340 -185 30 30 140 9 355 15 36%
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 357 -202 30 30 160 14 375 18
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 375 -220 30 30 160 18 375 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 393 -238 30 30 180 23 395 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 413 -258 30 30 200 27 415 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 434 -279 30 30 220 32 435 1
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 455 -300 30 30 240 36 455 0
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 478 -323 30 30 280 41 495 17
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 502 -347 30 30 300 45 515 13
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 527 -372 30 30 320 50 535 8
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 553 -398 30 30 340 54 555 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 581 -426 30 30 380 59 595 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 610 -455 30 30 400 63 615 5
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 641 -486 30 30 440 68 655 14
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 673 -518 30 30 460 72 675 2
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 706 -551 30 30 500 77 715 9
34 24 27 20 10 36 4 155 742 -587 30 30 540 81 755 13
37% 30.2% 30.6% 30.6% 30.4% 29.9% 34.6% 33.4% 32.0% 30.4% 33.1% 31.0% 32.9% 30.5% 31.6% 32.3%
A-113
Table A-120 Haiti Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 660 0 67 48 71 30 15 54 11 75 79 210 0 660 2010 726 0 69 49 71 31 15 56 11 77 79 269 0 726 2011 799 0 70 49 71 31 16 56 11 77 79 326 13 799 2012 878 0 71 50 71 32 16 58 11 79 79 387 25 878 2013 966 0 73 51 71 33 16 59 11 81 79 454 38 966 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,063 1,169 1,286 1,415 1,556 1,712 1,883 1,977 2,076 2,180 2,289 2,403 2,523 2,650 2,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 45 71 29 14 52 11 70 79 580 50 1063 62 44 71 28 14 50 11 68 79 680 63 1169 76 54 71 44 22 79 11 76 79 699 76 1286 79 56 71 46 23 82 11 78 79 803 88 1415 82 58 71 47 24 85 11 81 79 917 101 1556 81 57 71 47 23 85 11 80 79 1065 114 1712 84 60 71 49 25 89 11 83 79 1207 126 1883 83 59 71 49 24 88 11 81 79 1293 139 1977 83 59 71 49 24 88 11 81 79 1380 151 2076 80 56 71 47 24 85 11 78 79 1486 164 2180 80 57 71 48 24 86 11 78 79 1580 177 2289 78 55 71 46 23 83 11 76 79 1692 189 2403 79 56 71 47 23 84 11 77 79 1794 202 2523 78 55 71 46 23 83 11 75 79 1915 214 2650 76 54 71 45 23 81 11 74 79 2042 227 2782
Table A-121 Haiti Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Varreau PAP EDH Carrefour PAP EDH Peligre PAP EDH Varreau PAP Sogener IPPs Carrefour PAP IPP Thermal in Provinces Hydro in Provinces E-Power Gov of Brazil 20 MW LSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 11.4 8.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 11.9 0.4 10.7 1.2 28.5 0.0 82 38.4 120 2010 12.0 8.5 0.0 6.9 3.5 12.5 0.4 11.2 1.2 37.4 0.0 94 9.6 103 2011 12.9 9.1 0.0 7.4 3.7 13.4 0.4 12.1 1.2 48.4 0.1 109 2012 14.3 10.1 0.0 8.2 4.1 14.8 0.4 13.4 1.2 62.5 0.3 129 2013 15.0 10.6 0.0 8.6 4.3 15.5 0.4 14.1 1.2 75.1 0.4 145 2014 13.7 9.7 0.0 7.9 4.0 14.2 0.4 12.9 1.2 68.6 0.6 133 2015 13.8 9.7 0.0 8.0 4.0 14.3 0.4 13.0 1.2 77.7 0.7 143 2016 16.9 12.0 0.0 12.1 6.1 21.8 0.4 14.3 1.2 78.3 0.9 164 2017 17.5 12.4 0.0 12.6 6.3 22.6 0.4 14.8 1.2 87.8 1.0 177 2018 18.2 12.8 0.0 13.1 6.6 23.6 0.4 15.4 1.2 98.6 1.1 191 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
18.1 18.9 18.8 18.9 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.6 18.5 18.6 12.8 13.3 13.3 13.3 12.8 13.1 12.9 13.2 13.1 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.7 13.7 13.9 13.3 13.6 13.4 13.7 13.6 13.7 6.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.8 23.6 24.7 24.7 25.0 24.0 24.5 24.1 24.7 24.5 24.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 15.2 15.8 15.7 15.7 15.1 15.4 15.2 15.5 15.4 15.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 112.9 123.6 128.1 135.1 144.4 154.9 167.5 178.7 192.3 206.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 205 220 224 232 238 250 262 275 288 303
15.23 15.23 15.23 5.625 15.23 15.23 15.23 15.23 24.83 15.23 15.23 15.23 24.83 15.23 24.83 15.23 24.83 24.83 124 144 161 139 158 179 192 206 230 235 240 247 263 266 287 290 313 328
A-114
Table A-122 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 850 -68 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 1 25%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 884 -103 68 0 0 85 6 0 0 0 0 0 935 51 32%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 921 -139 68 0 0 85 12 0 0 0 0 15 935 15 27%
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 959 -177 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 27
29 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 782 998 -217 68 120 0 85 18 0 0 0 0 39
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 35 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 753
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 57 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 719
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 62 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 662
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 65 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 600
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
0 0 0 65 0 21 0 0 21 42 40 111 74 50 60 11 20 20 535
1,039 1,083 1,130 1,179 1,229 1,282 1,338 1,396 1,456 1,518 1,583 1,652 1,724 1,799 1,877 -286 68 120 60 85 18 0 0 0 0 51 -330 68 120 60 85 18 0 100 0 0 63 -377 68 120 60 85 18 0 200 0 0 75 -426 68 120 60 85 18 0 200 0 0 87 -476 68 120 60 85 18 0 300 0 0 99 -529 68 120 60 85 18 0 300 0 0 111 -620 68 120 60 85 18 0 400 0 0 123 -677 68 120 60 85 18 0 500 0 0 135 -795 68 120 60 85 18 0 600 0 0 147 -857 68 120 60 85 18 0 600 0 0 159 -984 68 120 60 85 18 0 800 0 0 171 -1,053 -1,190 -1,265 -1,343 68 120 60 85 18 0 800 0 0 183 68 68 68 120 120 120 60 60 60 85 85 85 18 18 18 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 207 219
1,055 1,055 1,087 1,187 1,287 1,287 1,387 1,387 1,452 1,552 1,595 1,595 1,733 1,733 1,868 1,868 1,968 97 38% 57 47 103 156 108 157 104 114 156 139 77 150 81 144 69 91
32% 30.7% 36.9% 42.3% 36.4% 41.0% 35.2% 35.6% 39.0% 36.9% 31.3% 36.8% 31.1% 35.4% 29.8% 31.0%
A-115
Table A-123 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

A-116
Table A-124 Jamaica Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Old Harbour Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Hunts Bay Rockfort Bogue Bogue Bogue Bogue JEP Barge 1 JEP Barge 2 JPPC Owned Jamalco Wigton Hydro 2009 19.4 38.8 42.0 44.3 44.3 15.2 0.0 22.7 15.2 28.0 28.3 79.6 48.2 32.5 39.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2010 2011 2012 31.2 62.2 67.4 71.0 71.0 34.5 0.0 23.7 33.2 79.3 54.5 86.3 44.6 30.0 35.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 42.3 41.7 0.0 87.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 900 2013 33.9 67.5 73.2 77.1 77.1 36.8 0.0 25.5 35.3 84.4 58.0 91.4 47.8 32.2 38.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 44.7 43.6 0.0 92.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 963 15 978 2014 0.0 76.8 83.3 87.7 87.7 42.6 0.0 16.5 17.0 39.1 28.6 53.5 32.1 21.6 25.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 2015 0.0 78.0 84.6 89.1 89.1 43.6 0.0 14.7 14.7 33.6 24.9 47.8 28.9 19.5 23.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 2016 0.0 76.6 83.1 87.5 87.5 42.9 0.0 13.6 13.3 30.2 22.5 44.1 26.9 18.1 21.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2017 0.0 80.5 87.3 91.9 91.9 45.0 0.0 13.7 13.2 29.9 22.5 44.6 27.1 18.3 21.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 2018 0.0 78.5 85.1 89.7 89.7 44.0 0.0 13.1 12.5 28.3 21.3 42.5 26.0 17.5 20.9 0.5 0.9 1.1 2019 0.0 82.8 89.7 94.5 94.5 46.5 0.0 13.4 12.7 28.8 21.7 43.4 26.5 17.8 21.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2020 0.0 81.1 87.9 92.6 92.6 46.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 27.1 20.6 41.8 25.6 17.2 20.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2021 0.0 80.3 87.0 91.7 91.7 45.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 25.0 19.1 39.5 24.3 16.4 19.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 2022 0.0 0.0 91.7 96.6 96.6 48.2 0.0 0.0 11.3 25.4 19.4 39.8 24.5 16.5 19.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
25.2 28.1 50.3 55.9 54.5 60.6 57.4 63.9 57.4 63.9 19.9 22.2 0.0 0.0 29.3 32.5 19.9 22.2 36.6 40.8 36.9 41.2 103.8 115.7 62.2 69.1 41.9 46.6 50.7 56.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 82.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 791 66.8 0.0 0.0 91.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 880
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.6 101.8 108.2 111.5 119.7 122.3 100.6 101.8 108.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.1 51.4 54.8 56.9 61.0 63.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 11.8 12.5 12.8 13.6 13.7 26.2 26.6 28.4 29.1 31.1 31.5 20.0 20.1 21.4 21.7 23.1 23.2 41.1 40.4 42.6 42.3 44.5 44.6 25.2 24.8 26.0 25.8 27.0 27.0 17.0 16.7 17.5 17.4 18.2 18.2 20.3 19.9 20.9 20.7 21.7 21.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
46.7 46.5 45.4 47.3 46.1 48.3 47.9 46.9 48.9 50.8 51.1 54.2 55.3 58.9 60.5 38.4 35.9 34.4 35.3 34.1 34.9 34.2 33.1 33.2 34.3 32.9 34.2 33.0 34.2 33.8 20.1 18.8 17.9 18.4 17.7 18.1 17.8 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.0 17.7 17.0 17.7 17.4 102.8 104.3 102.3 106.9 104.4 110.1 109.3 107.5 113.2 117.6 119.8 127.5 131.6 140.7 145.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 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 40.7 75.9 76.8 110.2 112.4 145.0 172.2 207.9 214.4 279.5 293.4 361.8 379.8 417.1 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.9 825 843 849 878 888 924 926 935 918 951 924 976 946 1,001 1,050 147 972 120 963 120 969 15 893 120 1,008 15 939 120 120 120 15 966 225 1,149 15 991 225 15 120
96.75 26.25 286.5 887 907 1,186
1,046 1,055 1,038
1,171 1,016 1,170
A-117
Table A-125 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2009 29 2010 30 2011 31 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 32 9 0 0 42 9 94% 2012 32 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 34 8 0 0 42 8 84% 2013 33 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 35 6 0 0 42 6 75% 2014 35 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 37 5 0 0 42 5 67.0% 2015 36 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 3 0 0 42 3 59.2% 2016 37 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 40 1 0 0 42 1 51.8% 2017 38 -10 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 42 -1 0 0 42 -1 2018 40 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 25 17 0 0 42 17 2019 41 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 26 15 0 0 42 15 2020 43 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 28 13 0 0 42 13 2021 44 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 30 11 0 0 42 11 2022 46 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 33 9 0 0 42 9 2023 47 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 35 7 0 0 42 7 2024 49 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 37 5 0 0 42 5 2025 51 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 2 0 0 42 2 2026 52 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 42 0 0 0 42 0 77.3% 2027 54 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 44 -3 5 0 47 2 84.1% 2028 56 -29 6 8 9 7 4 8 42 47 -5 5 0 47 0 71.2%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 39 2 0 0 42 2 43%
6 8 9 7 4 8 42 41 1 0 0 42 1 38%
44.9% 288.0% 243.0% 206.3% 175.7% 149.9% 127.8% 108.7% 92.0%
A-118
Table A-126 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C New Units 5 MW MSD Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 161 2010 166 2011 171 -68 16 20 21 17 8 20 0 0 103 2012 175 -68 16 21 22 18 9 21 0 0 108 2013 180 -68 17 22 23 19 9 22 0 0 113 2014 186 -68 18 23 24 20 10 23 0 0 118 2015 191 -68 19 24 25 21 10 24 0 0 123 2016 196 -68 19 25 26 22 11 26 0 0 129 2017 202 -68 20 26 28 23 11 27 0 0 134 2018 208 -203 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 2019 214 -203 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 11 2020 220 -203 3 3 4 3 1 3 0 0 17 2021 226 -203 4 5 5 4 2 5 0 0 23 2022 233 -203 5 6 6 5 2 6 0 0 30 2023 239 -203 6 7 8 6 3 7 0 0 37 2024 246 -203 7 9 9 7 4 9 0 0 43 2025 253 -203 8 10 10 8 4 10 0 0 51 2026 261 -203 9 11 12 10 5 11 0 0 58 2027 268 -203 9 11 12 10 5 11 7 0 65 2028 276 -203 10 13 13 11 5 13 8 0 73
24 32 33 27 13 32 0 0 161
25 32 34 28 14 33 0 0 166
Table A-127 St. Kitts Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs Station A Station A Station B Station C Station C 5 MW MSD Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 23 0 23 2010 3.6 4.7 5.2 4.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 2.5 3.2 3.6 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 17 0 17 2012 2.8 3.7 4.1 3.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 19 0 19 2013 3.0 3.9 4.4 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 21 0 21 2014 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2015 3.5 4.6 5.1 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 24 0 24 2016 3.7 4.8 5.4 4.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2017 3.9 5.0 5.6 4.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 26 0 26 2018 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 2 0 2 2019 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 4 0 4 2020 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2021 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 6 0 6 2022 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 7 0 7 2023 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 8 0 8 2024 1.4 1.9 2.1 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 10 0 10 2025 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 11 2026 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 13 0 13 2027 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.1 1.6 0.0 15 2.25 17 2028 2.2 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.2 1.8 0.0 16 0 16
A-119
Table A-128 Nevis Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

Year Peak Load (MW) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (MW) Existing Capacity (MW) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 Total Existing (MW) Required Capacity (MW) Existing System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) (MW) New Capacity (MW) 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Capacity (MW) System Surplus(+)/Deficit(-) with Unit Additions (MW) Reserve Margin (%) 2 4 5 3 14 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 46% 2 4 5 3 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 38% 2 4 5 3 14 24 -11 0 20 0 0 34 9 64% 2 4 5 3 14 25 -11 0 20 0 0 34 9 59% 2 4 5 3 14 26 -12 0 20 0 0 34 8 54% 2 4 5 3 14 427 -413 0 20 400 0 434 7 2.7% 2 4 5 3 14 428 -414 0 20 400 0 434 6 2.5% 2 4 5 3 14 429 -415 0 20 400 0 434 5 2.3% 2 4 5 3 14 430 -416 0 20 400 0 434 4 2.1% 2 4 5 3 14 451 -437 0 40 400 0 454 3 1.8% 2 4 5 3 14 452 -438 0 40 400 0 454 2 1.6% 2 4 5 3 14 453 -439 0 40 400 0 454 1 1.3% 2 4 5 3 14 455 -441 5 40 400 0 459 4 2.2% 2 4 5 3 14 456 -442 5 40 400 0 459 3 1.9% 2 4 5 3 14 458 -444 5 40 400 0 459 1 1.7% 2 4 5 3 14 459 -446 10 40 400 0 464 4 2.5% 2 4 5 3 14 461 -447 10 40 400 0 464 3 2.2% 2 4 5 3 14 463 -449 10 40 400 0 464 1 1.9% 2 4 5 3 14 465 -451 15 40 400 0 469 4 2.6% 2 4 5 3 14 467 -453 15 40 400 0 469 2 2.3% 2009 10 2010 10 2011 11 10 2012 11 10 2013 12 10 2014 13 410 2015 13 410 2016 14 410 2017 15 410 2018 16 430 2019 17 430 2020 18 430 2021 19 430 2022 20 430 2023 21 430 2024 23 430 2025 24 430 2026 25 430 2027 27 430 2028 29 430
A-120
Table A-129 Nevis Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

Year Energy (GWh) Exports(+)/Imports(-) (GWh) Generation (GWh) #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Total Generation (GWh) 2009 60 2010 67 2011 74 70 1 1 1 1 0 140 0 0 144 2012 82 70 2 4 4 2 0 140 0 0 153 2013 86 70 2 5 6 3 0 140 0 0 156 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 90 94 99 103 107 111 115 119 124 129 134 139 145 150 156 2,873 2,873 2,873 2,873 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3 6 7 4 0 140 2803 0 2963 3 8 9 5 0 140 2803 0 2968 4 9 10 6 0 140 2803 0 2972 4 10 12 6 0 140 2803 0 2976 5 12 13 7 0 280 2803 0 3120 5 13 15 8 0 280 2803 0 3124 6 14 16 9 0 280 2803 0 3128 4 11 13 7 15 280 2803 0 3133 5 12 14 7 16 280 2803 0 3138 5 13 15 8 17 280 2803 0 3142 4 11 13 7 29 280 2803 0 3147 5 12 14 7 31 280 2803 0 3153 5 13 15 8 34 280 2803 0 3158 5 11 13 7 45 280 2803 0 3164 5 12 14 7 48 280 2803 0 3170
8 19 22 12 0 0 0 0 60
9 21 24 13 0 0 0 0 67
Table A-130 Nevis Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs #2 & #3 #4, #6 #5, #7 #8 5 MW MSD Geo 20 MW Geo 100 MW Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 1.2 3.0 3.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0 9 2010 1.4 3.4 3.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 11 2011 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3 56 59 2012 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2013 0.5 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5 0 5 2014 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 41 1042 1,082 2015 0.7 1.7 1.9 1.0 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 42 0 42 2016 0.8 2.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 42 0 42 2017 0.9 2.2 2.5 1.4 0.0 1.8 34.4 0.0 43 0 43 2018 1.0 2.5 2.8 1.5 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 46 56 102 2019 1.2 2.8 3.1 1.7 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 47 0 47 2020 1.3 3.0 3.5 1.9 0.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 48 0 48 2021 1.0 2.4 2.7 1.5 2.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 49 2.25 51 2022 1.1 2.6 3.0 1.6 3.1 3.6 34.4 0.0 50 0 50 2023 1.2 2.9 3.3 1.8 3.4 3.6 34.4 0.0 50 0 50 2024 1.0 2.5 2.8 1.5 5.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 52 2.25 54 2025 1.1 2.7 3.0 1.6 6.3 3.6 34.4 0.0 53 0 53 2026 1.2 2.9 3.3 1.8 6.8 3.6 34.4 0.0 54 0 54 2027 1.1 2.6 2.9 1.6 9.2 3.6 34.4 0.0 55 2.25 58 2028 1.2 2.8 3.2 1.7 10.0 3.6 34.4 0.0 57 0 57
A-121
Table A-131 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance

12 6 37 21 0.1 76 76 0 0 0 0 76 0
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 79 -2 0 20 0 96 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 82 -5 0 20 0 96 15
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 85 -9 0 20 2 96 11
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 88 -12 0 20 3 96 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 91 -15 0 20 5 96 5
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 95 -19 0 20 6 96 1
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 98 -22 0 40 8 116 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 102 -26 0 40 9 116 14
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 106 -30 0 40 9 116 10
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 110 -34 0 40 11 116 6
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 114 -38 0 40 12 116 2
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 119 -42 0 60 12 136 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 123 -47 0 60 14 136 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 128 -52 0 60 14 136 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 133 -56 0 60 15 136 4
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 138 -62 0 80 15 156 18
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 143 -67 0 80 17 156 13
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 148 -72 0 80 17 156 8
12 6 37 21 0.1 76 154 -78 0 80 18 156 2
35.7% 65.0% 59.0% 53.2% 47.6% 42.2% 36.9% 59.4% 53.5% 47.9% 42.5% 37.3% 55.0% 49.3% 43.9% 38.6% 53.1% 47.5% 42.1% 36.9%
A-122
Table A-132 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Energy Balance

53 28 169 94 0.1 0 0 0 345
42 22 133 74 0.1 0 85 0 356
43 23 137 76 0.1 0 87 0 367
44 23 140 78 0.1 0 89 4 378
45 24 143 79 0.1 0 91 8 390
46 24 146 81 0.1 0 93 13 402
47 25 149 82 0.1 0 95 17 415
39 20 123 68 0.1 0 157 21 428
40 21 125 69 0.1 0 161 25 442
41 21 130 72 0.1 0 166 25 455
42 22 133 73 0.1 0 170 29 470
43 22 136 75 0.1 0 174 34 484
37 19 118 65 0.1 0 227 34 500
38 20 120 67 0.1 0 232 38 515
39 21 125 69 0.1 0 240 38 531
40 21 128 71 0.1 0 246 42 548
36 19 114 63 0.1 0 292 42 565
37 19 117 65 0.1 0 299 46 583
38 20 121 67 0.1 0 309 46 601
39 20 124 69 0.1 0 318 50 620
Table A-133 St. Lucia Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs 2009 2010 6.5 3.4 20.3 11.2 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 53 9.6 62 2011 7.2 3.8 22.3 12.4 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 58 0.0 58 2012 8.0 4.2 24.8 13.8 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 65 1.9 67 2013 8.4 4.4 26.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.1 68 1.9 70 2014 4.7 2.5 14.6 8.1 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.1 38 1.9 40 2015 4.8 2.5 14.9 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.2 39 1.9 41 2016 4.0 2.1 12.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.2 40 11.5 51 2017 4.1 2.2 12.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.3 41 1.9 43 2018 4.3 2.3 13.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.3 42 0.0 42 2019 4.4 2.3 13.7 7.6 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.3 44 1.9 45 2020 4.4 2.3 13.7 7.6 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.4 44 1.9 46 2021 3.8 2.0 11.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.4 45 9.6 54 2022 3.9 2.1 12.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.4 46 1.9 47 2023 4.0 2.1 12.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.4 47 0.0 47 2024 4.2 2.2 13.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.5 49 1.9 51 2025 3.8 2.0 11.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.5 52 9.6 61 2026 4.0 2.1 12.4 6.9 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.5 54 1.9 56 2027 4.2 2.2 12.9 7.2 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.5 56 0.0 56 2028 4.3 2.3 13.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.6 58 1.9 60
Cul de Sac 8.0 Cul de Sac 4.2 Cul de Sac 24.7 Cul de Sac 13.7 Rooftop solar 0.0 20 MW LSD 0.0 20 MW LSD 0.0 Wind 0.0 Production Cost (million $) 51 Investment Costs (million $) 0.0 Total System Costs (million $) 51
A-123
Table A-134 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Capacity Balance
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 36 22 0 0 0 58 22
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 38 20 0 0 0 58 20
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 41 17 0 0 2 58 17
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 44 14 0 0 2 58 14
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 47 11 0 0 3 58 11
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 50 8 0 0 3 58 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 53 5 0 0 5 58 5
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 57 1 0 0 5 58 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 61 -3 0 10 6 68 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 65 -7 0 10 6 68 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 70 -12 0 20 8 78 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 75 -17 0 20 8 78 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 80 -22 0 30 9 88 8
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 85 -27 0 30 9 88 3
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 91 -33 0 40 11 98 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 98 -39 0 40 11 98 1
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 104 -46 0 50 12 108 4
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 111 -53 0 60 12 118 7
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 119 -61 0 70 14 128 9
12 3 35 3 2.5 3 0 58 127 -69 0 70 14 128 1
118.8% 104.7% 91.5% 79.1% 67.5% 56.7% 46.6% 37.1% 50.3% 40.6% 50.9% 41.1% 48.9% 39.3% 45.1% 35.7% 39.9% 43.0% 45.1% 35.7%
A-124
Table A-135 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Energy Balance
31 7 98 7 6 7 0 0 0 0 156
33 7 105 7 6 8 0 0 0 0 167
35 7 110 8 6 8 0 0 0 4 178
37 7 118 8 7 9 0 0 0 4 191
39 7 124 9 7 9 0 0 0 8 204
42 7 133 9 8 10 0 0 0 8 218
44 7 140 10 8 11 1 0 0 13 233
48 7 151 11 9 11 1 0 0 13 249
40 7 128 9 8 10 0 0 47 17 266
43 7 137 10 8 10 1 0 53 17 284
37 7 119 8 7 9 0 0 96 21 304
40 7 126 9 7 9 0 0 106 21 325
35 7 111 8 7 8 0 0 146 25 348
37 7 118 8 7 9 0 0 160 25 372
34 7 107 8 6 8 0 0 198 29 397
36 7 112 8 7 8 0 0 217 29 425
32 7 102 7 6 8 0 0 258 34 454
30 7 96 7 6 7 0 0 299 34 485
28 7 89 6 5 7 0 0 339 38 519
38 7 114 9 8 9 1 0 332 38 555
Table A-136 St. Vincent and Grenadines Integrated Scenario Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Fuel and O&M Costs St. Vincent St. Vincent Lowmans Bay Bequia Union Island Canouan Mayreay 10 MW MSD 10 MW CFB Wind Production Cost (million $) Investment Costs (million $) Total System Costs (million $) 2009 4.7 0.2 14.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 22 2010 5.2 0.2 15.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 25 2011 5.7 0.2 17.2 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 1.875 29 2012 6.7 0.2 20.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0 32 2013 7.2 0.2 21.4 1.7 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 34 1.875 36 2014 8.0 0.2 23.9 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 38 0 38 2015 8.7 0.2 25.9 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 41 1.875 43 2016 9.4 0.2 28.0 2.2 1.9 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 44 0 44 2017 8.1 0.2 24.1 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.0 6.9 0.2 45 27.38 73 2018 8.6 0.2 25.7 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.0 7.3 0.2 48 0 48 2019 7.6 0.2 22.6 1.8 1.6 1.9 0.1 0.0 12.9 0.2 49 27.38 76 2020 8.0 0.2 24.0 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.0 13.7 0.2 52 0 52 2021 7.2 0.2 21.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.0 18.5 0.3 53 27.38 80 2022 7.7 0.2 22.9 1.8 1.6 1.9 0.1 0.0 19.7 0.3 56 0 56 2023 7.0 0.2 20.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.1 0.0 23.8 0.3 57 27.38 85 2024 7.4 0.2 22.1 1.7 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 25.3 0.3 61 0 61 2025 6.9 0.2 20.5 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 29.3 0.4 62 27.38 90 2026 6.5 0.2 19.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 0.1 0.0 33.3 0.4 64 25.5 90 2027 6.2 0.2 18.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 0.1 0.0 36.8 0.4 66 27.38 94 2028 8.4 0.2 23.7 2.1 1.9 2.2 0.2 0.0 35.1 0.4 74 0 74
A-125
Table A-137 Integrated Scenario Production Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Fuel Savings (exports) Total 2009 48 163 13 1,149 32 82 547 23 9 51 22 0 2,139 2010 49 188 13 1,458 35 94 791 25 11 53 25 0 2,740 2011 52 202 15 1,578 39 109 880 17 3 58 27 0 2,980 2012 72 223 3 1,567 43 129 900 19 5 65 32 0 3,058 2013 73 234 4 1,653 34 145 963 21 5 68 34 0 3,234 2014 77 102 25 1,749 49 133 825 22 41 38 38 -611 2,488 2015 82 105 26 1,669 51 143 843 24 42 39 41 -627 2,437 2016 85 108 26 1,736 51 164 849 25 42 40 44 -632 2,541 2017 88 112 27 1,670 53 177 878 26 43 41 45 -635 2,525 2018 91 116 28 1,732 55 191 888 2 46 42 48 -634 2,605 2019 94 120 28 1,680 55 205 924 4 47 44 49 -638 2,610 2020 93 120 29 1,726 56 220 926 5 48 44 52 -634 2,685 2021 96 120 30 1,787 59 224 935 6 49 45 53 -637 2,766 2022 99 123 31 1,769 59 232 918 7 50 46 56 -642 2,747 2023 97 125 31 1,824 61 238 951 8 50 47 57 -641 2,849 2024 100 132 32 1,811 61 250 924 10 52 49 61 -649 2,834 2025 103 139 33 1,881 64 262 976 11 53 52 62 -656 2,980 2026 106 145 34 1,873 64 275 946 13 54 54 64 -663 2,965 2027 109 150 35 1,945 66 288 1,001 15 55 56 66 -673 3,114 2028 113 157 36 1,945 74 303 1,050 16 57 58 74 -684 3,200
Table A-138 Integrated Scenario Investment Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and Grenadines Interconnection Costs Total 2009 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2010 0 0 0 385 0 10 97 0 0 10 0 0 501 2011 5 14 0 150 0 15 26 0 56 0 2 18 287 2012 8 14 56 790 4 15 287 0 0 2 0 2 1,178 2013 8 7 0 38 27 15 15 0 0 2 2 2 116 2014 4 4 643 38 0 6 147 0 1,042 2 0 1,105 2,989 2015 0 4 0 648 2 15 120 0 0 2 2 28 820 2016 0 4 0 38 26 15 120 0 0 11 0 28 242 2017 0 4 0 670 0 15 15 0 0 2 27 28 761 2018 0 4 0 38 2 15 120 0 56 0 0 28 263 2019 2 4 0 648 26 25 15 0 0 2 27 28 776 2020 26 11 0 38 2 15 120 0 0 2 0 28 241 2021 0 4 0 38 0 15 120 0 2 10 27 28 244 2022 0 11 0 660 26 15 120 0 0 2 0 28 862 2023 27 11 0 38 2 25 15 0 0 0 27 28 173 2024 0 11 0 638 26 15 225 0 2 2 0 28 946 2025 0 4 0 38 0 25 15 0 0 10 27 28 146 2026 26 13 0 638 27 15 225 0 0 2 26 28 999 2027 2 13 0 38 0 25 15 2 2 0 27 28 153 2028 0 4 0 638 26 25 120 0 0 2 0 28 842 Salvage Value 77 88 369 4,389 147 211 1,351 2 623 35 158 559 8,009
A-126
Table A-139 Integrated Scenario Interconnection Cost Summary (Million 2009 US$)
Year Dominica - Martinique & Dominica - Guadeloupe Nevis - Puerto Rico Nevis - St. Kitts Total 0 0 18 18 2 2 2 2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Salvage Value
119 734 2 854
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
4 17 2 23
59 367 7 434
A-127
Attachment B
B.1 INTRODUCTION
Submarine Power Cable Reliability
For many years submarine cables were simply laid unprotected on the seabed and the geotechnical aspects of their installation were largely limited to identifying potential hazards such as: Areas subject to submarine landslides. Freespans between rocky outcrops in combination with strong sea bottom currents, which could cause metal (sheath and armor) fatigue due to vortex shedding. Areas of seismic activity.
As the fishing industry moved into deeper and deeper waters the incidence of cable failures increased significantly as evidenced by a survey of submarine cable failures carried out by CIGRE and published in 1986. The results of this survey can be summarized as follows: All submarine cable types > 18 kV were included in the survey Global failure rate was 0.32 failures/ year / 100 km cable Failure rate due to cable defects was ~ 0.05 failures / year / 100 km cable Failure rate due to third party mechanical damage was ~ 0.27 failures / year / 100 km cable
This high incidence of cable failures due to third party marine activities led to widespread use of cable burial in the seabed as a means of providing the necessary protection against such activities. The effectiveness of cable burial in significantly reducing failures due to third party damage is well proven by experience though the absence of global failure statistics makes it difficult to quantify the benefit as far as power cables are concerned. In this context published failure data for submarine telecommunication cables is relevant. Shapiro states that failure rates of telecommunication rates fell from 0.37 failures / year / 100 km (1959 -1979) to 0.04 failures / year / 100 km after 1985 due to burial of existing and new cable systems. It is interesting to note the close correspondence of these failure data with the 1986 CIGRE survey results for power cables.1 B.2 SELECTION OF BURIAL DEPTH
The major threat to submarine cables is generally that of fishing activities although in certain areas and in particular in shallow water, anchoring may also pose a potential hazard. Fishing activities, which pose a threat, include trawling by either beam or otter boards. These types of fishing gear do not penetrate the seabed to any great extent and fairly shallow burial (~ 2 feet) will generally provide adequate protection. A more aggressive type of fishing gear is used in shellfish dredging. Fishing gear designed for this type of fishing either engages the seabed or
1
CIGRE Technical Brochure No. 379 which is an update of the 1986 report has just been published. A copy has been ordered.
B-1
disturbs it with water jetting to chase the fish into the nets. In general 3 feet burial depth should be necessary to protect against this type of fishing. Much more dangerous is stow net fishing, which is found in shallow waters with high currents. The fishing vessel anchors and the fish are carried into the nets by the current. The anchors required are, therefore, much larger than normal for the vessel size necessitating deeper cable burial. In one reported case 4m (13 feet) burial was required. Indicative burial depths for protection against anchoring are as follows: Anchor Mass 0.2 tons: Anchor Mass 0.5 tons: Anchor Mass 1.0 tons: Anchor Mass 15.0 tons: Anchor Mass 30.0 tons: 0.50 m (1.6 feet) 0.75 m (2.5 feet) 1.20 m (4.0 feet) 4.00 m (13.1 feet) 5.00 m (16.4 feet)
It is, however, clear that the nature of the seabed sediment plays an important part in deciding the level of protection afforded by a given burial depth. Figure B-1 provides an indication of the resistance of various soil types to penetration of anchors and fishing gear. The data, which are based on submarine telecommunication cable experience with typical seabed sediment types are presented in terms of a Burial Protection Index (BPI). A BPI of unity corresponds to good protection against beam and otter trawls.
Figure B-1 The Relative Protection Against Third Party Marine Activities Afforded by Several Typical Seabed Sediment Types A BPI higher than unity is obviously justified where there is a significant risk due to anchoring or aggressive types of fishing activities.
B-2
Typical power cable burial depths are 3 - 6 feet in sandy soils and deeper in soft soils. Burial is typically carried out at the shore ends and down to water depths of ~300 400 feet. Table B-1 provides some examples of submarine cable projects where cable protection has been provided by burial in the seabed. Table B-1 Burial Depths and Burial Equipment Used in Some Important Submarine Cable Projects
Project Details Date Max. Water Depth (feet) 65 Burial Depth (feet) and Burial Equipment Used 5 Water-jetting 4 Water- jetting 5 11 Water-jetting 25 Water-jetting 8 12 hydroplow 3 11 Water-jetting 11 Hydroplow 3 Water-jetting 3 (to 500 feet water depth at both shore ends) Water-jetting
Langkawi Island, Malaysia 132 kV SCFF Cable South Padre Island, USA 138 kV XLPE Cable NYPA Long Island USA 345 kV SCFF Cable Skagerrak 3 (N to DK) 350 kVDC MI Cable Penang Island, Malaysia 275 kV SCFF Cable Spain Morocco 400 kV SCFF Cable Shikoku Island (J) 500 kVDC SCFF Cable Moyle - Scotland to N. Ireland 250 kVDC MI Cable Italy Greece 400 kVDC MI Cable
1986
1991
1991
130
1992
1640
1996
50
1997
2020
1999
250
2001
N/A
2002
3300
Telecommunication cables are now being routinely buried in the seabed at depths in the range of 3 to 10 feet and it is common practice to bury cables down to 3000 feet water depth. B.3 BURIAL EQUIPMENT
Several types of burial equipment are available including the following:
B-3
Static plow Static plow with water jets (jet-plow) Water-jetting machine Suction pumps (vacuum, air- and water-lift pumps) Cutting chain machine Cutting wheel machine Mechanical disintegrators
The jet plow and the water-jetting machine are now the preferred types of equipment for power cable burial in relatively soft seabed sediment e.g. sand and soft to medium hard clay. B.3.1 The Jet Plow
The working principle for the Hydroplow (Figure B-2) is to fluidize the seabed materials in a narrow path and to a predetermined depth without displacing the majority of the material or causing turbidity in the surrounding waters beyond 5m (16.4 ft). The method has been positively proven to place fiber optic cables and power cables at a consistent required burial depth in sand and clay bottom conditions. The HydroPlow is towed by a support vessel with dynamic positioning or on a barge using mooring anchors. The fluidizing effect provides relatively low and controlled towing forces. The burial depth is typically around 8 ft.
Figure B-2 Prysmians Hydroplow III
B.3.2
The Water-Jetting ROV
The water-jetting ROV (Figure B-3) combines the effect of fluidizing the seabed and hydrodynamic transport of the fluidized material. In the front, low-pressure water jets are used to fluidize the seabed. The fluidized material is transported backwards utilizing other jetting nozzles. The cable or pipeline sinks by its own weight into the trench before the fluidized material is allowed to settle and start the back-filling process.
B-4
Nexans Capjet systems have been in operation since 1978 and have been used to install many hundreds of km of telecommunication and power cables. Different versions are available for fiber optic cables, power cables and pipeline burial. There are various ejector modules to handle the different seabed sediment types encountered and high pressure or rock cutting systems.
Figure B-3 Nexans Capjet 650 ROV
B.4 B.4.1
CABLE BURIAL ASSESSMENT Simultaneous Lay and Burial
Simultaneous lay and burial using the static plow is the preferred option for (telecommunications) cable burial since it combines the advantages of immediate protection with reliability and minimum seabed sediment disturbance. The prediction of plow performance depends on a knowledge of the geotechnical characteristics of the seabed concerned. In the first place it is necessary to know whether the sediment is cohesive or non-cohesive. If the sediment is cohesive reasonable estimates of plow performance can be made based on the undrained shear strength. Non cohesive sediments e.g. fine silty sands can be surprisingly difficult to plow due a high effective shear strength caused by the development of pore suctions as the sand dilates. The problem of pore suction has been largely solved by the introduction of the jet-plow. Until recently the main burial assessment tool (BAS) was a scaled down version of the static plow, the data from which could be correlated directly with the full sized plow performance.
B-5
The disadvantage of the technique is that it requires to be operated from a relatively large cable laying vessel with a large A frame and high pull capability which are not compatible with the normal survey vessel type. In consequence there has been a trend away from BAS tools to the use of the mini cone penetration tester (MCPT). MCPT devices have been developed to provide high quality in-situ geo-technical data in real time to depths of up to 6m below the seafloor. MCPT testing involves the insertion of a metal rod with a conical end piece into the seabed at a fixed rate. The equipment monitors the resistance of the sediment to the passage of the cone tip and the frictional force on the sleeve of the rod. The MCPT provides useful data on the friction ratio and on the un-drained shear strength of clays and on the density of sands and is now widely used in burial assessments. As indicated above the first step in the interpretation of MCPT data is to determine the soil type. Some progress has been made in this context by Robertson and Campanella, who have shown that the soil type is a function of the cone resistance and the friction ratio. Clays can be distinguished from sands and various sand types can also be recognized. In the case of clays good empirical correlation can be established in terms of depth, speed and tow tension between the MCPT results and the plow performance. Correlation with sand types is more difficult as detailed above. However, as a rule of thumb it can be said that the jet-plow can be expected to operate successfully in sediments with un-drained shear strengths up to ~ 100 kPa. The disadvantage of the MCPT in common with all sampling processes is that the entire cable route cannot be covered. For this reason Cable and Wireless Global Marine have developed CBass. This is a towed sledge device incorporating a CPT and geotechnical equipment designed to permit extrapolation of data between CPT locations. At this stage data correlation with plow performance is still largely empirical but progress is being made in the direction of a more direct correlation. B.4.2 Post Lay Burial
In order to match the performance of the static and jet-plows, post lay water jetting has also been developed over the last few years. The main development trend has been the introduction of more powerful ROVs (neutral buoyancy or tracked vehicles) with burial capability up to 3m (13 feet). The increase in power has permitted faster and deeper burial and also burial in harder sediments. Until a few years ago jetting to a depth of 1m (3 feet) was limited to sediments having an un-drained shear strength of ~ 40 kPa. Greater power now available permits burial in sediments with un-drained shear strengths up to ~ 100 kPa equaling the performance of the jetplow. B.5 NOTE ON SEABED DISTURBANCE
Prysmians experience using the Hydroplow burial equipment can be summarized as follows: Monitoring of the seabed disturbance has never been requested or carried out. The disturbance to be expected is (of course) related to the nature of the seabed sediment, but in general one can expect the removal of ~30% of the section of the trench created by the stinger. The trench is normally in the range 1-2 ft. wide and up
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report B-6
to 10 ft deep. Taking the 2 ft. width trench, the quantity of sediment removed from the trench would be as follows: 2.4 cubic feet per linear foot of trench for 4 ft. cover 3.6 cubic feet per linear foot of trench for 6 ft. cover 4.8 cubic feet per linear foot of trench for 8 ft. cover During the passage of the plow the trench will collapse or not depending on the nature of the seabed sediment. In the case of clay there is no immediate collapse. Sand and silt will collapse almost immediately. Most of the displaced (or side-cast) material forms along both sides of the trench and gradually disappears over a period of time which depends on the nature of the material and the seabed currents. A depression in the center of the trench can persist for a long period of time.
Nexans experience with their Capjet 50 ROV is that the water-jetting method gives a narrow partly back-filled trench. The percentage of backfill will normally vary from 30 to 90 %, dependant on the current and the sediment type. Natural action by sea current will complete the back-filling over a period of time. The conclusion from the above experience summaries is that disturbance of the seabed is identical for the two burial techniques. The essential difference between the two techniques is that one is post-lay burial (water-jetting machine)2 and the other permits simultaneous lay and burial (Hydroplow). B.6 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROTECTION
Alternative protection methods such as covering the submarine cables with concrete mattresses or rock dumping can also be considered, but these are generally only used in special circumstances where burial is difficult such as inadequate soft sediment depth, a rocky seabed or at pipeline or cable-crossing locations. B.6.1 Concrete Mattresses
This refers to the normal mode of operation. Water-jetting ROVs can also be configured for simultaneous lay and burial operation.
B-7
Figure B-4 Flexible Concrete Mattresses
Flexible concrete mattresses were introduced in the early 1990s and have been used to provide protection for numerous pipeline, cable and umbilicals. They consist of high strength concrete segments which are linked together with a network of high-strength polypropylene rope. This structure gives a high degree of flexibility. Installation is relatively simple when carried out with the quick release frame shown in Figure B-4. They are considered suitable for HV submarine cable protection by the industry and the writer is not aware of any drawbacks associated with their use. B.6.2 Rock Dumping
Rock dumping has been used extensively for protection of pipelines and cables. Relatively large volumes of selected rocks are placed over exposed subsea cables by a specially constructed vessel which is equipped with a flexible and retractable fallpipe which can be deployed in water depths in the order of 800 -1000 m (2500 3300 ft). At the end of the fallpipe is a heavy dury ROV which is suspended above the cable (see Figure 5). Horizontal thrusters on the ROV are used to control the placement of the rocks.
B-8
Figure B-5 Rock Dumping in Progress
B.6.3
Split Cast Iron Pipes
Split cast-iron pipes have been placed around the cable by divers (see Figure B-6) to provide protection in relatively shallow waters and generally near landfall in areas which are either rocky or otherwise unsuitable for water-jetting or jet-plowing.
Figure B-6 Split Cast-Iron Pipes
B-9
B.6.4
Uraduct
Uraduct is another industry accepted protection system for submarine power cables. It consists of cylindrical half shells of a tough polyurethane which overlap and interlock around the cable. The half shells are secured using corrosion resistant banding located in recessed grooves to provide a smooth external profile (see Figure B-7). Although Uraduct can be used instead of cast-iron shells, it is frequently used at cable or pipeline crossings to provide separation and thermal insulation.
Figure B-7 Uraduct Protected Cable Being Installed
B.7
CONCLUSIONS
A well planned and executed submarine power cable project which takes full account of the route conditions and provides appropriate cable protection against third party damages can provide a high availability during the design life which is generally accepted to be a minimum of 40 years.
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report B-10
Attachment C
C.1 GENERAL
Submarine Power Cable Repair Procedures
It is recommended that the Owner together with the O&M Contractor, which can also be the submarine cable supplier, develop a repair strategy based on local repair facilities to ensure that any in-service failure of the submarine cable can be located and repaired within an agreed target repair time. In this Report target repair times have been worked out on the assumption that the Contractor is alerted and the fault pre-located by in-station equipment on Day 1, that a suitable repair vessel is available, and that spare cable and repair splices are stored by the Owner and available for use. The impact of unfavorable weather conditions on the target repair schedule has not been taken into account. The repair procedures described in the remaining sections of this Report are intended to provide the Owner with guidelines which will be helpful in the development of a Failure Response Plan. C.2 REPAIR ACTIVITIES
A typical submarine cable repair operation will normally involve the following sequence of activities: Verify that a fault actually exists on the cable. Review relay targets, Megger, etc. Owner alerts the O&M Contractor and all relevant third parties and authorities as detailed in the Failure Response Plan to assure that all necessary permits are in place and all notifications to third parties are issued prior to initiating the repair works. Final precise fault location is carried out using Electroding equipment. This equipment applies a low frequency tone to the cable and a small surface vessel equipped with a magnetic field detector is used to pinpoint the fault. The vessel spread is provided locally and the Electroding equipment is part of the stand-by repair equipment. Final fault location can also be carried out from the repair vessel when it arrives on site but this is not the preferred approach. The repair vessel is selected from among those pre-approved and listed in the Failure Response Plan and rigged with all necessary cable handling equipment at its home port. Mobilization of the support spread including diver support vessel and mooring anchor placement tugboats and crew boat. The repair spread proceeds to the warehouse location where loading out of spare cable and spare splices and all necessary repair tools is carried out and then continues on to the failure location. On arrival at the failure location the cable de-buried (if necessary), cut, recovered and tested. Cable splicing (two splices per repair). Also, optical fiber cable splicing (if required).
C-1
C.3
On-board testing of repaired cable. Repaired cable laying. Final cable test. FAULT LOCATION EQUIPMENT
Submarine cable repair begins with fault location. In general a pre-location is carried out from the cable terminal station and this is followed by a final pin-pointing of the fault location carried out from a small surface vessel. C.3.1 Terminal Station Equipment
The fault location equipment generally preferred for installation in the terminal stations is the TDR (Time Domain Reflectometer). The TDR works on the same principle as radar. An energy pulse is transmitted along the cable. When the pulse reaches the end of the cable, or a fault along the cable, part of the pulse energy is reflected back to the TDR equipment. The TDR measures the time it takes for the signal to travel along the cable to the fault or discontinuity and back to the TDR equipment. The TDR then converts this time to distance and displays the result. There are two ways the TDR can display the measurement results. The first and traditional method is to display the actual waveform or signature of the cable on a CRT or LCD. The display will show the outgoing pulse generated by the TDR and any reflections, which are caused by impedance discontinuities along the length of the cable. The second type of display is simply a digital readout, which supplies the distance indication to the first major impedance change or discontinuity. The digital versions are less expensive and easier to operate and can be as accurate as the traditional TDR for the location of major cable faults. In general, however, the traditional TDR equipment is to be preferred. The larger the difference between the fault impedance and the cable characteristic impedance, the more intense the reflected pulse and therefore the longer the detectable distance to the fault. The sign of the reflected pulse depends on the type of fault encountered. A cut cable or an open end termination generates a reflected pulse of the same sign while a short circuit due to insulation failure will generate a reflected pulse of the opposite sign (see Figure C-1). To achieve maximum range TDRs are used together with a surge generator and coupler and the measurement setup is shown in Figure C-2.
C-2
Figure C-1 CRT Trace Showing Two Types of Reflected Pulse
Figure C-2 TDR Measuring Setup Diagram Thumping (applying high energy pulses using the equipment shown in Figure C-2) the cable may be necessary to achieve a sufficiently low fault impedance for TDR fault location to work well. The presence of salt water will probably reduce the need for thumping compared with a cable installed underground. The precision of the TDR fault location measurement can be in the order of plus/minus 1% of the measured distance which for a 30 mile long cable link would be in the order of plus/minus 1,500 ft. Cable Dynamics TDR 1170 manufactured by Hipotronics is considered to have suitable characteristics for long distance submarine cable fault location. This instrument requires a high
C-3
voltage coupler to interface with a cable fault locator (thumper) and has a specified maximum range of ~ 30 miles. OTDR (optical time domain reflectometry) which uses high intensity laser light instead of electrical energy is similar to TDR and can be also be used in the event that the optical fibers (integral or bundled with the power cable) are also damaged as a result of cable failure. In theory, the accuracy should be better than that achievable with TDR provided that the refractive index of the fiber is known accurately. In practice, however, the expected accuracy is generally little better than plus/minus 1%. Despite the (probable) limited accuracy of these techniques it is recommended that both TDR and OTDR equipment are included in the stand-by equipment available at the terminal stations. The latest innovation in the field of TDR fault location in power lines is the Faulsat TDR system developed by the Viscas Corporation (Fujikura Ltd.). This is an online fault detection system, which is claimed to give highly accurate fault location in real time. Sensors placed at both end of the cable line detect the pulses generated by the failure itself. The high accuracy is achieved by using nanosecond timing pulses from GPS satellites to synchronize crystal oscillator clocks at the cable terminations Figure C-3). Claimed accuracy in tests carried out on the Tachibana Bay 500 kV DC submarine cable (50 km in length) was 15 m (~50 feet). The Faulsat can be used for both underground and overhead transmission lines and to date 60 units have already been sold to Japanese Utilities. A quotation, if required, can be obtained from Yoshiaki Sato (ysato@fujikura.co.uk).
C-4
GPS s a t e l l i t e
Pu l s e c o d e s i g n a l Ant e nna T e r mi n a t i o n Cur r ent s ens or

GPS r e c e i v e r T i mi g c o u n t e r Mo d e m S i gna l p r oc e s s i ng uni t
A n t e nn a
T e r mi n a t i o n Cur r ent s ens or Cabl e

S i gna l p r oc e s s i ng uni t GPS r e c e i v e r T i mi g c o u n t e r Mo d e m
Local s t at i on
L oc a l s t a t i o n
T r a n s mi s s i o n l i n e
Mo d e m P RT Di s pl ay Se l f - d i agn os i s ( O p t i c a l l i n e , T e l e p h o n e l i n e , Mo b i l e p h o n e , e t c . )
Ma s t e r s t a t i o n
Figure C-3 Fujikuras Faulsat Set-up
C.3.2
Offshore Fault Location
Final fault location is carried out using a technique known as Electroding. The Electroding system consists of the following components: The Electroding generator which injects a signal in the frequency range 5 to 40 Hz into the submarine cable from the terminal station. Two magnetic search coils - one horizontal and one vertical - which are installed on either the repair barge or support vessel. The Electroding detector which is a high gain low frequency selective amplifier, which is connected to the search coils.
To locate the fault the Electroding generator is connected at the terminal station between the faulted cable conductor and the station ground. The current flows along the cable conductor to the fault location and returns partly in the cable sheath/armor and partly in the sea thus establishing electric and magnetic fields outside the cable itself. The magnetic fields are detected by means of the search coils. At the sea surface the horizontal and vertical magnetic fields reach maximum and minimum values, respectively, directly above the cable (see Figure C4).
C-5
Figure C-4 Variation of the H and V Magnetic Fields with Distance from a Faulted Submarine Cable Determination of these maximum and minimum fields enables the position of the cable to be located. Once the cable signal has been detected the surface vessel follows the cable on a zigzag course until the signal disappears. When this happens the fault or break has been located. Additional runs are performed to obtain a more precise fix on the failure location. The accuracy of this technique depends on the specifics and the nature of the failure itself as well as the environment at the failure location. However, for relatively shallow water (50-60 feet) fault location the accuracy should be in the order of plus/minus 10 feet. Suppliers of suitable equipment include Innovatum Inc. Ultra Models 44 and TSS TSS 350. The equipment is expensive but can also be rented for use during repair operations. C.3.3 Proposed Fault Location Equipment for System Maintenance
It is proposed that the following fault location equipment be made available for the submarine cable system O&M : Two TDRs with associated thumpers and HV couplers (one set at each terminal station). Two OTDRs (one set at each terminal station). One Electroding System with AC generator or arrangements made for the rental of such.
C-6
One TDR and one OTDR should also be provided as spares. It is also recommended that TDR and OTDR footprints of the as-built cable system be made during system commissioning. A knowledge of the precise location of features such as factory splices and optical fiber splices could be of significant important for improving the precision of the fault location measurements. C.4 REPAIR SPREAD AND EQUIPMENT
It is recommended that the repair spread be based on a shallow draft barge having a deck area in the order of 200 ft. x 60 ft. A list of local marine construction companies owning suitable barges should be included in the O&M Manual. Support vessels will necessarily include the following: An auxiliary barge for mooring anchor handling and placement (if necessary). A diver vessel used for diver support and mooring anchor positioning. Two tugboats for assisting the barges and supporting anchoring and moving operations. A crew boat for transport of crew members and cable repair staff.
The repair barge will be the rigged with the following equipment: DGPS equipment. Cable handling/coiling equipment Cable laying equipment (incl. 2 linear tensioning machines, 2 roller ways, 2 laying sheaves). Crane or A frame for laying of the final cable bight. Four winches for the mooring anchor system. Spare cable in a cable basket - around 200 ft, of spare cable will be needed for a limited cable damage repair. Alternatively, two motorized cable reels, one for the spare cable and one for the scrap cable can be used. Repair equipment (incl. splicing tent, splicing tools HV test set). TYPICAL REPSIR PROCEDURE
C.5
The first operation is location of the position of the fault using the TDR/OTDR and Electroding techniques described in Section 3.0 of the present Report. At the same time the repair barge is selected. The repair barge is rigged with cable handling equipment at its home port, proceeds to the spare cable storage facility for loading of the required spare cable and splices. The repair spread will then sail towards the fault location where the repair barge will be moored.
C-7
The cable will then be unburied (by divers or ROVs depending on the water depth) using waterjetting equipment, suction hoses or air-lift pumps. Note that it is normally necessary to expose and remove a length of at least 100 to 150 ft. The divers will then clamp each end of the exposed cable length and proceed to cut the cable. The cut cable length will be saved for failure analysis. The first cable end will then be recovered and an additional length cut away and the cable core and optical fibers subjected to HV and OTDR tests, respectively, to assure that the remaining cable length is damage free. The cable end is then capped and re-laid on the seabed with a buoy attached to facilitate the subsequent cable recovery operation. The repair barge will then move towards the second cable end, which will be recovered, cut back and tested in exactly the same way as the first end to assure freedom from damage. The cable end will then be spliced to the length of spare cable. Following completion of the first splice, the repair barge will move to recover the remaining cable end paying out spare cable on the way. The buoyed cable end is then recovered and the second splicing and final HV and OTDR testing operations will proceed. Once completed the repair barge will move in a direction perpendicular to the cable route in order to lay the cable bight. When the apex of the bight clears the linear tensioning engines the cable is installed on a 180o roller sector, lifted over the barge and lowered to the seabed as the repair barge continues to move in a direction perpendicular to the cable route. Once the roller sector has been recovered the cable bight can be re-buried using water jetting or other agreed means such as concrete mattresses or rock dumping and the cable subjected to final HV and OTDR testing. Finally, it should be noted that at the end of the repair operations an extra cable length of approximately twice the water depth has been added to the cable. C.6 TYPICAL SUBMARINE CABLE REPAIR PROGRAM
The following schedule of repair activities assumes that the cable repair contractor has been alerted and the pre-location of the fault carried out by the terminal station personnel. In addition it is assumed that the barge suppliers have been identified and that they are familiar with the cable repair equipment and requirements.
C-8
Table C-1 Schedule for Submarine Cable Repair Program

Repair Activity Mobilization of the repair spread. Loading of spare cable and transfer to fault location. Final fault location check and repair barge mooring. Cable de-burial. Cable cutting and first end recovery. Fault clearance, testing and re-laying of first end. Second end recovery. Fault clearance, testing. First splicing operation and testing. Spare cable lay and recovery of first cable end. Second Splicing operation and testing. Lay of final bight and final test. Cable re-burial. Final testing. TOTAL ESTIMATED REPAIR TIME Number of Days per Activity 14 3 0.5 2 0.5 3 0.5 2.5 3 1 3 1 2 1 35 days Cumulative Days 14 17 17.5 17.5 18 21 21.5 24 27 28 31 32 34 35
It should be noted that the repair time is critically dependent on the availability of a suitable repair barge, which cannot, of course, be guaranteed. In addition, no account has been taken of the possibility that difficult weather conditions might cause delays. Availability of good weather forecasting before and during the repair operations is vital to avoid, as far as possible, difficulties due to adverse weather conditions. C.7 COST OF SUBMARINE CABLE REPAIRS
From the foregoing descriptions of all of the activities required to locate the failure, recover the cable and carry out the repairs, it is clear that the costs involved are substantial and that site conditions such as water depth and depth of burial in the seabed will also have cost impacts. In 2005 the cost of repairing a failure in an HV submarine cable installed in a water depth of 1,000 m (3,300 ft) was stated to be Euro 6 million ($US 7.4 million at the July 2005 exchange rate). For more moderate installation conditions (less that 100 m water depth and with the cable lai unburied on the seabed) a figure of $US 4 to 5 million can be assumed.
C-9
The number of failures during the nominal 40 year lifetime of submarine power cable systems can be estimated from the failure rate of 0.32 failures/100 km/year (see companion report on submarine cable reliability). For a 50 km single cable link ~ 6 failures can be expected with repair costs totaling $US 24 30 million. According to available statistics, the failure rate can be reduced to 1 failure in 40 years provided that failures due to third party causes are eliminated by protecting the cable by burial in the seabed or other appropriate means such as the use of concrete mattresses or rock dumping. Outage times tend to be much longer that the actual time needed to carry out the repair itself due to lack of availability of appropriate marine spreads, lengthy mobilization times, weather related problems particularly if repairs need to be carried out in winter, etc. A minimum outage time of ~ 3 months can be assumed, which is another reason for the provision of adequate mechanical protection.
Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy Final Report C-10

Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy, Final Report, March 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection, and Fuels Supply Strategy, Final Report, March 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Submitted to: World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Figure 1-1 Caribbean Regional Map

Figure 1-2 Countries Included in the Study

Figure 1-3 Other Relevant Countries Addressed in the Study

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

St. Lucia 56 58 61 63 65 68 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 95 98 102 106 110 114

Table 1-2 Net Generation Forecast (GWh)

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-4 Fossil LCL for Dominican Republic

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

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

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-14 Distillate LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options

Annual Cost, $/kW-year

Figure 1-15 Barbados LCL vs. Renewable Energy Options

There are two elements to this Activity:

Activity 5 has four main components:

Activity 6 has three main components:

As per TOR, Activity 7 has three main components:

Existing and Planned Generation, Summary of Transmission

EXISTING AND PLANNED GENERATION PLANTS

Table 5-2 Existing Generating Units

LSD LSD LSD LSD ST GT

12.80 13.40 13.40 30.50 20.00 43.00

12.50 13.20 13.20 30.50 20.00 43.00

13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 5%

1982 1986 1990 2003 1976

6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 20% 7% 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% 8% 12% 6% 7% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 7% 7% 37% 37%

2003 1984 1984 1996 1998 1998

MSD MSD HY MSD MSD MSD HY

17.00 8.00 18.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00

8.50 4.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

10% 10% 30%

15% 15% 15% 10%

12% 12% 12% 10%

^^ Assumed 30% cap factor

30% ^^ Assumed 30% cap factor

11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 5% 5% 14% 5% 8% 5% 5%

2014 2022 2024

MSD MSD LSD Cogen

9.30 12.50 30.00 11.00 150.00 23.50 20.00 23.00

9.20 12.40 30.00 11.00

14% 14% 14% 12% 14% 5% 6%

1996 2006 1999

< Based on 47.7 GWH

Name Martinique - Existing

41% 86% 16% 18%

LSD LSD MSD MSD MSD LSD

6.10 7.90 4.40 3.60 3.50 4.00

6.10 7.90 4.40 3.60 3.50 4.00

13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%

MSD MSD MSD MSD

0.92 2.20 2.50 2.70

0.92 2.20 2.50 2.70

15% 15% 15% 15%