Documents and presentations from the public discussion about the development and implementation of the Solar FIT program
Technical requirements for connecting new facilities to GRU's transmission system
Testimony and exhibits presented on behalf of GRU and American Renewables (related to the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center) at the PSC hearing on May 3, 2010, in Tallahassee, Fla.
- GREC Invoices/Billing (dataGNV/Government 2.0)
- Regional Utilities Committee Generation Planning Update (October 10, 2011)
- Power Purchase Agreement & Equitable Adjustment for Change of Law (PPA unredacted as of April 6, 2011)
- Appendix VI: GREC Operating Procedures (September 9, 2012)
- Appendix VI: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 1 (November 21, 2012)
- Appendix VI: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 2 (March 6, 2014)
- Appendix VI: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 3 (August 8, 2014)
- Appendix VI Exhibits: GREC Operating Procedures, Revisions 1 & 2 (November 21, 2012)
- Appendix VI Exhibits: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 3 (August 8, 2014)
- Appendix VI Exhibits: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 4 (September 30, 2014)
- Appendix VI Exhibits: GREC Operating Procedures, Revision 5 (June 18, 2015)
- Lease Agreement between GRU & GREC LLC (September 28, 2009)
- Presentation: Contract for Biomass-fueled Generation (May 7, 2009)
- Stewardship Incentive Plan For Biomass Fuel Procurement
- News Release: GRU Chooses a 100 MW Biomass Power Plant (May 23, 2008)
- News Release: GRU Signs Power Purchase Agreement with American Renewables (May 7, 2009)
- Nacogdoches RFP Response (April 11, 2008)
GRU notes that Appendix 13 of the Nacogdoches RFP response is not provided on the website because GREC has asserted that Appendix 13 contains trade secret information related to GREC's financial statements.
RFPs for biomass-fuel electrical power generation
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 and19; Figures 13, 15 and 17; and Appendix A (updated 11/9/2007)
Biomass Resource Assessment Part I: Availability and Cost Analysis of Woody Biomass for Gainesville Regional Utilities
Biomass Resource Assessment Part II: Availability and Cost Analysis of Using Municipal Solid Waste Components as Alternative Fuel Sources for Power Generation
City Commission Special Meeting (June 18, 2007)
Options for a Biomass Energy Supply Request for Proposal
City Commission Special Meeting (May 10, 2007)
Gainesville Regional Utilities Program Evaluation by Roger Duncan and 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
RFI for Energy Supply Development
GRU issued a Request for Letters of Interest (RFI) from entities in an effort to seek opportunities to 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 contract for power supply as detailed in the RFI for Energy Supply Development.
Responses to RFI Energy Supply Development
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 on March 1, 2006.
ICF Independent Review of Gainesville’s Future Power Needs
GDS Associates Inc. was selected by the City Commission to provide a peer review of the ICF Consulting report.
GDS Peer Review of ICF Consulting Report
Updated GDS Review of ICF DSM Analysis for the 3/21/2006 City Commission Workshop
GDS Presentation to the City Commission for the 3/21/2006 City Commission Workshop
Demand Side Management Assimilation and Evaluation
Presentation by David Barclay, utility analyst (presented to RUC on 4/27/2006)
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.
GRU has been considering a number of options to meet 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 the fact that they can be burned in an environmentally responsible manner, thanks to modern technology. 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 more than 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.