1 / 22

Northeast Natural Gas Infrastructure Assessment

Northeast Natural Gas Infrastructure Assessment. Planning Advisory Committee March 3, 2005 Herbert Rakebrand III Herbert Rakebrand and Associates, LLC. Purpose of the Assessment. To assess the impacts of natural gas infrastructure enhancements on bulk electric system reliability

nhi
Télécharger la présentation

Northeast Natural Gas Infrastructure Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Northeast Natural Gas Infrastructure Assessment Planning Advisory Committee March 3, 2005 Herbert Rakebrand III Herbert Rakebrand and Associates, LLC

  2. Purpose of the Assessment • To assess the impacts of natural gas infrastructure enhancements on bulk electric system reliability • Develop an understanding of the relationships between infrastructure, supply and contracting • Support the ongoing training of ISO Staff

  3. Findings • The existing market structure puts local gas distribution companies (LDCs) at a competitive advantage over electric power generators for the purchasing/financing of natural gas services, primarily due to the “pass-thru” of costs across customer rate base. • Recent natural gas infrastructure expansions in the Northeast have either been narrowly focused to serve specific markets (NYC) or were designed to bring Sable Island gas supplies to market.

  4. Findings (cont.) • Given the recent declines in Sable Island production (deliveries), New England’s electric power sector has received little or no benefit from recent gas infrastructure development • The completion of the HubLine/M&N Phase III projects simply moved the same (or declining) Sable Island gas supply from one delivery point on the gas grid to another (from Tennessee to Algonquin)

  5. Findings (cont.) • The ISO should monitor Sable Island gas deliveries, and the impact their declines are having on existing pipeline transportation contracts held by electric power generators • Natural gas infrastructure projects being developed and constructed over the near term will be sized to meet only the incremental load growth of LDCs, while they await new supply development

  6. Findings (cont.) • The electric power sector should not expect any meaningful benefits from gas infrastructure development over the next several years • While the natural gas industry and electric power generators have had an ongoing dialogue regarding new products and services, currently, the electric generators do not have the economic incentives or the financial wherewithal to support or contract for any enhanced pipeline service offerings

  7. Findings (cont.) • LNG projects proposed along the existing pipeline route, initially developed for Sable Island gas deliveries, will bring the greatest benefits to the electric sector by backfeeding the natural gas grid and creating a good deal of residual capacity benefits • LNG projects proposed along the St. Lawrence River will bring the least amount of benefits to the Northeast U.S. as a large share of that new gas supply will probably remain in eastern Canada

  8. Findings (cont.) • The value of pipeline infrastructure (economic and physical) is directly proportional to the availability of gas supply being injected into that infrastructure • ISO should monitor the regulatory developments at FERC regarding heat content of LNG to determine if this will have an adverse impact on the operation of gas-fired electric generators in the region

  9. Findings (cont.) • ISO should monitor the market drivers which lead to the development of both natural gas infrastructure development and new products and services

  10. A Review of the Existing Natural Gas Infrastructure in the Northeast

  11. Recent Gas Infrastructure Builds and the Market Drivers Supporting Them • Eastchester (Iroquois) • Market is ConEdison (LDC) and NYC generators • Provides a much needed backfeed to ConEd distribution system • HubLine (Duke) • Market comprised of Generators (61%), LDCs (29%) & Marketers (10%) • Provides a new backfeed to a weak Algonquin lateral • M&N Phase III (Duke) • No Market • Provides a new feed into Algonquin (HubLine) for access to Sable Island gas • The I-8 Uprating (Duke) • No Market • Enhances Algonquin’s ability to serve emerging markets beyond Fore River • The Distrigas Project (Duke) • Market is Distrigas supply • Expands Distrigas’ access to expanding New England gas markets

  12. Current Market Environment for Gas Infrastructure Development • Declines in Sable Island gas production • Proliferation of LNG terminal proposals • The collapse of spark-spreads • The decline of the “Mega-Marketers” • Well organized NIMBY(ism)

  13. An Assessment of Current Gas Infrastructure Capabilities • Distrigas • New 60 MDt/d of capacity added on the Algonquin system on October 1, 2004 • Iroquois • 70 MDt/d of primary firm held by Marketers with access to southwest Connecticut • 60 MDt/d of secondary firm sold annually • FERC approval for a new 10,000 HP compressor in Brookfield, CT

  14. An Assessment of Current Infrastructure Capabilities(cont.) • Algonquin and Tennessee • These older pipelines have little in the way of excess capabilities and would require to have gas introduced into their systems in the market area (LNG) in order to create any incremental capability • Portland and Maritimes & Northeast (M&N) • While these newer pipelines have some incremental capacity capabilities, both are considered supply-constrained at this point and into the near future

  15. Gas Infrastructure Proposals - Medium Term (2005-2008) • Algonquin • BGLS Project (Providence LNG Expansion) • Adds 500 MDt/d of takeaway capacity from the proposed expansion of the existing Providence LNG plant • IslanderEast • This project proposes to transport 260 MDt/d from central Connecticut to Long Island by late 2005 • Status of supply to fill this capacity is currently undetermined • FERC approved but currently stalled by the State of Connecticut • Duke Energy Gas Transmission Open Season • Service commencement dates between 2006 and 2009 • Earlier service dates will be to serve near term LDC requirements; later service dates will serve LNG supply proposals

  16. Gas Infrastructure Proposals - Medium Term (2005-2008) (cont.) • Tennessee • Tewksbury-Andover Lateral (June 2005) • 5 mile lateral with 25 MDt/d of capacity • Serving Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Bay State Gas (LDC) • Northeast ConneXion–New England (November 2007) • Open Season extended into early 2005 • Volumes said to be approx 100 MDt/d targets LDC markets • Increased long-haul capacity from Gulf of Mexico • Distrigas (November 2007) • 7.6 miles of new pipeline • Up to 75 MDt/d of incremental access to Tennessee’s markets

  17. Gas Infrastructure Proposals -Long Term (2009 & Beyond) • LNG projects along the St. Lawrence River • Rabaska – 0.5 Bcf/d • Gros Cacuona – 0.5 Bcf/d • Characteristics: • Majority of gas will remain in eastern Canada • U.S. deliveries will be made primarily to Iroquois, with the potential for some deliveries into Portland • Local opposition has become an issue for Rabaska • Gros Cocuona requires developing a substantial pipeline lateral to reach the markets

  18. Gas Infrastructure Proposals –Long Term (2009 & Beyond) (cont.) • LNG projects in the Canadian Maritimes • Bears Head (Anadarko) – 1.0 Bcf/d • Canaport (Irving Oil) – 1.0 Bcf/d • Characteristics: • Provides greatest benefit to the northeast infrastructure • Majority of required infrastructure to access New England’s gas markets is already in place (M&N pipeline) • These projects are the furthest along in development

  19. Gas Infrastructure Proposals –Long Term (2009 & Beyond) (cont.) • LNG projects in the Northeast U.S. • Providence (RI) LNG (BLGS) – 375 MDt/d • Weavers Cove (RI) – 800 MDt/d • NorthEast Gateway (Offshore) – 800 MDt/d • Broadwater (LI Sound)– 1.0 Bcf/d • Characteristics: • All have significant NIMBY issues • With the exception of NorthEast Gateway, additional infrastructure will be required on pipeline mainlines

  20. Products and Services • Past Impediments • Offering new services without new capabilities • Concentrating on the traditional gas marketplace and not the emerging electric marketplace • Charging customers for what they already get for free • Lack of market signals Note: With the addition of significant supplies from the north (either LNG and/or increased Sable Island production), New England’s pipelines will be in a much better position to offer enhanced services

  21. The Interdependency of Supply and Infrastructure • The value of pipeline capacity is directly driven by the availability of an adequate supply of gas • The location of incremental supplies will determine where infrastructure is built and what resultant benefit it will provide to the electric generation industry • Forecast future supply additions are currently influencing today’s pipeline capacity purchasing decisions

  22. Questions and Discussion

More Related