Future Power Needs
The Public Discussion of Gainesville's Future Power Needs
Index of Articles
Fact Sheets
Fact Sheet on Biomass-Fueled Generation Facility RFPFact Sheet on Possible Nuclear Energy Expansion
RFP for Biomass-Fueled Generation
GRU issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for biomass-fuel electrical power generation. Eleven responses were received on December 14, 2007. Binding Proposals were requested from the top three ranked proposers and received on April 11, 2008. The Binding Proposals and subsequent evaluations have been posted here.
RFP for Biomass-Fueled GenerationRFP Addendum Number 1
RFP Addendum Number 2
Responses to RFP for Biomass-Fueled Generation
Staff Evaluations of Biomass Responses
Binding Proposal 4/11/08 – Covanta Energy Corporation
Binding Proposal 4/11/08 – Nacogdoches Power, LLC
Binding Proposal 4/11/08 - Sterling Planet
Evaluation Methods and Results - Binding Proposals
Binding Proposal Recommendation City Commission Presentation 4/28/08
Also see the Biomass Availability studies linked below:
Economic Availability of Alternative Biomass Sources for Gainesville, Florida (October, 2007)
Principal Investigator: Dr. Douglas R. Carter, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. Co-Principal Investigators: Dr. Matthew Langholtz, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida;
Please Note some minor corrections were made to Tables 7, 13, & 19 and Figures 13, 15, & 17 and Appendix A. Updated 11/9/07
June 18, 2007 City Commission Special Meeting
Options for a Biomas Energy Supply Request for Proposal
May 10, 2007 City Commission Special Meeting
Gainesville Regional Utilities Program Evaluation by Roger Duncan & John Trowbridge, Austin Energy
Florida’s Energy Efficiency Leader by David Barclay, GRU
Designing an Energy Supply Plan by Ed Regan, GRU
Staff’s Favorite Combination by Karen Johnson, GRU
Next Meeting
TBA
RFI for Energy Supply Development
GRU issued a Request for Letters of Interest (RFI) from entities in an effort to seek opportunities to either develop additional base load electric generation capacity at its Deerhaven Power Plant site, participate in one or more base load power supply project(s) located elsewhere, or to contract for power supply as detailed in the RFI for Energy Supply Development.
Responses to RFI Energy Supply Development
Independent Consultation
The City Commission selected ICF Consulting to perform independent consultation on options for meeting the electrical supply needs of the Gainesville community. ICF delivered their report to the Commission by March 1, 2006.
For information regarding the ICF independent review of Gainesville’s future power needs.
Peer Review
GDS Associates, Inc. was selected by the City Commission to provide a peer review of the ICF Consulting report.
View the GDS Peer Review of the ICF Consulting report.
View the updated GDS Review of ICF DSM Analysis for the 3/21/06 City Commission Workshop.
View the GDS presentation to the City Commission for the 3/21/06 City Commission Workshop.
Demand Side Management Assimilation and Evaluation
Presented to the RUC on April 27, 2006 by David Barclay, Utility Analyst
GRU's Proposed Plan
The proposed plan includes six new energy conservation programs, water reuse, a renewable energy and energy conservation goal, funding for greenhouse gas projects, and the ability to use a wide range of solid fuels such as biomass, coal and petroleum coke.
BACKGROUND
GRU has been considering a number of options in meeting the future power needs of our community, one of which involves the building of a new electric generating unit at our Deerhaven Generating Station. Based on current forecasts, we will need additional electric generation in the 2011 time frame to meet customer needs.
To get to this point, we heard from hundreds of customers during six community workshops we conducted in the summer and fall of 2003. We also participated in a number of speaking engagements at civic organizations and participated in City Commission meetings. GRU staff logged hundreds of hours preparing materials, gathering customer input and developing a plan based on this input. Numerous experts in the field also assisted us in putting together this preliminary plan. Letters were sent to every GRU customer announcing the early Commission meetings and providing contact information to give input.
During our outreach efforts we clearly heard that conserving energy and protecting our environment were of utmost importance to our community. We were also urged to:
- Keep electric rates affordable
- Assure a reliable source of energy
- Increase the use of renewable energy sources
- Help enhance the local economy
- Protect the environment
Based on what we have learned, the best solution that balances all of these factors seems to be a combination of increased conservation efforts and building new generation, using both solid and renewable fuel sources.
The need for electricity continues to grow
In spite of the fact that our customers consume the lowest amount of electricity per customer in the state, the need for electricity continues to grow and we must meet this need. To do this, we have spent more than a year researching, studying, analyzing and discussing various alternatives.
Narrowing the options
In December 2003, the City Commission approved the continued study of all three initiatives including three solid fuel options. Two of the three solid fuel options were larger units (557 MW and 425 MW) that would have been jointly owned with other customer-owned utilities, but built at the Deerhaven site. After several weeks of additional review and consideration and based on the public input we received, we recommended to the City Commission on February 9, 2004 that these two larger joint projects be removed from consideration. These two options were removed from consideration, and we continued to study one solid fuel option - a 220 MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB).
Another option that is available is buying power from other electric generating companies through long term contracts rather than building our own generation. We believe this would result in higher costs to customers.
Why solid fuels instead of natural gas?
Natural gas has an important place in power generation, but there is a significant difference between base load plants that run 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, and intermediate and peaking units that run only during periods of high demand - like when you come home in the evening and turn on appliances. The volatility and large price spikes that natural gas has experienced in recent years, along with its limited supply going forward, makes natural gas an impractical choice for base load generation. Solid fuels like coal and petroleum coke are better choices because of their greater availability, long-term price stability, and because with modern technology it can be burned in an environmentally responsible manner. See frequently asked questions for more information.
Retrofitting Deerhaven 2
Deerhaven Unit 2 is a coal burning unit, is our largest generating unit, and is over 20 years old. While it is still a very dependable source of generation that helps us keep electricity affordable, modern air emissions control equipment can significantly reduce emissions. As a result of new federal legislation passed in April, 2005, GRU will proceed with the retrofitting of Deerhaven 2 to meet new standards. All utilities east of the Mississippi have been mandated to meet these new standards. Due to rising costs resulting from competition for construction-related resources among these utilities, the cost of the retrofit is now estimated at approximately $141 million.
