Integrated Resource Plan

Final Report
2016 INTEGRATED RESOURCE

PLAN
Bermuda Electric Light Company
June 30, 2016

This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the
report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to
Leidos constitute the opinions of Leidos. To the extent that statements, information and opinions
provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, Leidos has relied
upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations
or warranties are made. Leidos makes no certification and gives no assurances except as
explicitly set forth in this report.
2016 Leidos, Inc.
All rights reserved.
2016 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Glossary of Terms
Executive Summary
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................1
Section 1 IRP METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Description of IRP Objectives ................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy of
Bermuda ................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Load Forecast ........................................................................................... 1-7
1.5 Fuel Forecast ............................................................................................ 1-9
1.6 Financial and Other Planning Criteria ................................................... 1-12
1.7 Existing Resources ................................................................................. 1-13
1.8 Demand-Side Resource Options ............................................................ 1-14
1.9 Supply-Side Resource Options .............................................................. 1-17
1.10 Levelized Cost of Energy Screening...................................................... 1-18
1.11 Production Cost Modeling ..................................................................... 1-19
1.11.1 Production Cost Cases ............................................................... 1-19
1.12 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources ........................................ 1-24
Section 2 Principal Assumptions and Considerations ........................................... 2-1

2.1 Principal Assumptions and Considerations ............................................. 2-1
Section 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 LCOE Results .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Modeling Results ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Sensitivity Analysis Results................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Qualitative Evaluation Results ............................................................... 3-12
3.5 Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................... 3-14
3.5.1 Evaluation Methodology............................................................ 3-14
3.5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................ 3-16
3.6 Procurement Plan ................................................................................... 3-19
3.6.1 Procurement Plan Overview ...................................................... 3-19
3.6.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply ................................................... 3-19
3.6.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Supply ............................................... 3-20
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1

Table of Contents
3.6.4 Thermal Resources .................................................................... 3-20

3.6.5 Utility Scale Solar PV ................................................................ 3-21
3.6.6 Battery Energy Storage .............................................................. 3-21
3.6.7 CHP............................................................................................ 3-21
3.6.8 Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation/Demand
Side Management ...................................................................... 3-22
3.6.9 5 MWac Solar PV Power Purchase Agreement ........................ 3-22
Section 4 IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 IRP Study Period ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Financial Factors ...................................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Load Forecast........................................................................................... 4-2
4.4.1 Weather Normalization Results ................................................... 4-2
4.4.2 Economic Data Review ............................................................... 4-6
4.4.3 Updated Econometric Model of Bermuda NEL .......................... 4-9
4.4.4 Load Forecast Methodology ...................................................... 4-10
4.4.5 Forecast Results ......................................................................... 4-11
4.5 Reserve Margin Planning Criteria ......................................................... 4-13
4.6 Existing Generating Resources .............................................................. 4-14
4.7 Power Supply Options ........................................................................... 4-17
4.7.1 Supply-Side Options .................................................................. 4-17
4.7.2 Demand-Side Options ................................................................ 4-21
4.7.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) Portfolio Definition ....... 4-24
4.7.4 Basis of Unit Operating Performance ........................................ 4-26
4.8 Projections and Detailed Fuel Model Development .............................. 4-27
4.9 Renewable Energy Portfolio Targets ..................................................... 4-36
4.10 Transmission System Constraints and Capital Expenditures ................ 4-37
4.11 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources........................................ 4-37
4.12 Alignment with the National Electricity Sector Policy of
Bermuda ................................................................................................. 4-38
4.13 Production Cost Case Definitions .......................................................... 4-41
4.14 Carbon Monetization Pricing ................................................................. 4-45
List of Appendices
A LOAD FORECAST
B RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
C FUEL PRICE PROJECTIONS
D DETAILED LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY AND SCENARIO
RESULTS
E COMBINED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SCORING
F DISCUSSION DOCUMENT FOR RESOURCES NOT
CONSIDERED IN IRP
GoT-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1 June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy
Supply Mix ....................................................................................................... 1-5
Table 1-2 Existing Power Generating Resource Mix ............................................... 1-14
Table 1-3 Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh) ....................... 1-17
Table 1-4 Qualitative Assessment Criteria ............................................................... 1-24
Table 3-1 Summary of Estimated Levelized Cost by Case ($/MWh) ........................ 3-3
Table 3-2 Energy Supply Mix Aspirational Mix (Case 2) ....................................... 3-5
Table 3-3 Energy Supply Mix Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) ............................... 3-5
Table 3-4 Energy Supply Mix Fuel-Oil (Case 5) ..................................................... 3-5
Table 3-5 Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) ............................ 3-6
Table 3-6 Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) ........................... 3-6
Table 3-7 Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) ................................................................................................ 3-7
Table 3-8 Fuel-Oil (Case 5) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW) ................... 3-8
Table 3-9 Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) ................................................................................................ 3-9
Table 3-10 Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) Annual Expansion Plan
Summary (MW) .............................................................................................. 3-10
Table 3-11 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given
Sensitivity Scenarios) ..................................................................................... 3-12
Table 3-12 Summary of Case Overall Ranking ........................................................ 3-15
Table 3-13 Sensitivity of Overall Ranking to Weighting Factors............................. 3-16
Table 4-1 Capacity Gap Analysis (Base Load Forecast with Reserves) ................... 4-16
Table 4-2 Key Solar PV Assumptions ...................................................................... 4-22
Table 4-3 Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh) ....................... 4-26
Table 4-4 Fuel Price Scenarios AEO Case Basis ...................................................... 4-34
Table 4-5 Qualitative Assessment Criteria ............................................................... 4-38
Table 4-6 June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy
Mix.................................................................................................................. 4-39
Table 4-7 Summary of Assumed Carbon Pricing ..................................................... 4-46
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-3

Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP ................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 Energy Forecast (GWh) ......................................................................... 1-8
Figure 1-3 Peak Demand Forecast (MW) ................................................................ 1-8
Figure 1-4 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast ................................................. 1-11
Figure 1-5 Base Case Delivered Cost Forecast...................................................... 1-11
Figure 3-1 NPV Summary of LCOE Analysis Results............................................ 3-1
Figure 3-2 Summary of Annual $/MWh Costs by Case .......................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Emissions by Case ................................. 3-3
Figure 3-4 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Intensity by Case.................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs by Year vs. Reference
Case ................................................................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-6 Qualitative Scoring Results .................................................................. 3-13
Figure 4-1 Parabolic Temperature Response for BELCO Peak Demand ................ 4-3
Figure 4-2 Actual v. Normal Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days for
Bermuda ........................................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-3 Historical and Weather Normalized System Energy (GWh) ................. 4-5
Figure 4-4 Historical and Weather Normalized System Peak Demand
(MW) ................................................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-5 Summary of Year-over-Year Changes in Real GDP ............................. 4-7
Figure 4-6 Energy Forecast .................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-7 Energy Forecast (Narrow Y-axis) ........................................................ 4-12
Figure 4-8 Peak Demand Forecast (MW) .............................................................. 4-13
Figure 4-9 Capacity vs. Load ................................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4-10 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast ............................................... 4-28
Figure 4-11 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (with Import Duty).......... 4-29
Figure 4-12 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (without Import
Duty) ............................................................................................................... 4-29
Figure 4-13 Base Case LFO Forecast (with Import Duty) .................................... 4-30
Figure 4-14 Base Case HFO Forecast (with Import Duty) .................................... 4-31
Figure 4-15 Base Case LPG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty) ............................. 4-31
Figure 4-16 Base Case LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate) Forecast (with
Import Duty) ................................................................................................... 4-32
Figure 4-17 Base Case LNG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty) ............................ 4-32
Figure 4-18 Base Case LNG Bulk Full Conversion Forecast (with Import
Duty) ............................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4-19 Base Case LNG Bulk Partial Conversion Forecast (with
Import Duty) ................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4-20 Base, High and Low LFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-34
Figure 4-21 Base, High and Low HFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-35
Figure 4-22 Base, High, and Low LPG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty) ......................................................................................... 4-35

Table of Contents
Figure 4-23 Base, High, and Low LNG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts
(with Import Duty).......................................................................................... 4-36

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This section includes definitions of acronyms and terms that are used within the 2016
Integrated Resource Plan.
TERM DEFINITION
AEO Annual Energy Outlook; an annual projection of key fuel and market
prices prepared by the United States Energy Information
Administration for purposes of informing energy analysis.
Assumptions Compilation of assumptions used as a basis for this IRP and
Document summarized as Section 4 of this report.
BAU Business As Usual
BELCO Bermuda Electric Light Company
BELCO Team BELCO IRP Project Team
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BSSR Battery Support for Spinning Reserve
BTU British Thermal Unit
CC Combined Cycle
CCHP Combined Cooling Heat and Power
CHP Combined Heat and Power
Conservation A premeditated behavioral adjustment associated with a conscious
decision to adjust an end-users utility or comfort in order to reduce
energy consumption; examples include adjusting the thermostat at
the expense of temperature comfort, and turning off lights when not
in the room; contrast with energy efficiency (defined below).
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CT Combustion Turbine (Same as gas turbine)
DG Distributed Generation; resources that generate electricity that are
distributed across the power delivery grid or installed to serve the
load of a specific end-user or customer; examples include rooftop
solar generation and CCHP/CHP units that serve a single load; DG
resources typically avoid transmission cost associated with
traditional large scale grid-based resources.
DOE Department of Energy (U.S.)
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1

Glossary of Terms
TERM DEFINITION
DR Demand Response - Programs that target reductions in demand
during key peak hours of utility load through direct intervention to
curtail certain end-uses; example: water heater direct load control
that cycles water heaters to limit their utilization during anticipated
critical peak load events at the utility level.
DSM Demand Side Management; an umbrella of measures, programs,
and incentives that attempt to control energy demand in lieu of
serving that demand with generating resources that are grid
connected in the traditional centrally controlled utility framework; the
key components of DSM include demand response (defined above),
energy efficiency (defined below), and conservation (defined above).
EE Energy Efficiency; deriving the same utility from a given end-use
using a less energy-intensive device that does not require a change
in user behavior or intervention to conserve energy, and/or programs
and incentives that encourage end-use switch-outs to more efficient
units; example: Energy Star dishwasher incentive programs.
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPC Engineer Procure and Construct
FEED Feasibility and Front End Engineering Design
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
Fuel Cell A technology that converts chemical energy directly into electricity
from natural gas and air vapor and produces heat and water vapor
as by products.
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GT Gas Turbine (same as CT)
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
IC Internal Combustion
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ISO International Organization of Standardization
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
Leidos Leidos Engineering, LLC
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy

Glossary of Terms
TERM DEFINITION
LFO Light Fuel Oil
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MSD Medium Speed Diesel
NG Natural Gas
NPV Net Present Value
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
PV Photovoltaic
RET Screen An Excel-based clean energy project analysis software tool that
helps decision makers quickly and inexpensively determine the
technical and financial viability of potential renewable energy, energy
efficiency and cogeneration projects.
RFP Request for Proposals
SAM System Analyzer Model
SC Simple-Cycle
SME Subject Matter Expert
SSD Slow Speed Diesel
STG Steam Turbine Generator
Synapse Report Synapse 2016 CO2 Price Forecast
Study Period 20-year IRP study period beginning in 2017
T&D Transmission and Distribution
Tg/QBtu Tera Grams per Quadrillion Btu
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
Tynes Bay Tynes Bay Waste-to-Energy Facility
U.S. United States
W Watt
WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital
White Paper 2011 Bermuda Energy White Paper: A National Energy Transition

Glossary of Terms
TERM DEFINITION
WT Wind Turbine
WTE Waste-to-Energy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Overview
The Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) has engaged Leidos Engineering,
LLC (Leidos) to prepare a comprehensive integrated resource plan (IRP) capturing
the costs, risks and benefits of alternative expansion paths consisting of various
combinations of candidate resource options. The IRP reflects a 20-year forecast horizon,
beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2036 (the Study Period). The
IRP as presented in this report is focused exclusively on the cost of production
associated with either serving or abating Bermudas electricity demand over the Study
Period and does not reflect the translation of estimated production costs into retail rates
for any of BELCOs retail sectors. Such efforts typically follow IRP activities and are
predicated upon the selected expansion plan, which includes the cost of both supply-
side resources that serve load and demand-side management initiatives that cost-
effectively abate load.
Bermuda is faced with significant challenges and opportunities as it navigates its energy
future. In the wake of recently declining loads driven by the recent global economic
contraction, an aging asset base made up almost exclusively of oil-fired diesel
generation must be replaced with a blend of sustainable, reliable, and cost-effective
electric generating resources that carefully balance a variety of stakeholder objectives
while maintaining a reliable power grid. Figure ES-1 below summarizes recent year-
over-year changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) in the territory, as reported
in the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic Report.
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP
Based on Leidos review of the above mentioned reports, as well as supportive material
and information provided by BELCO related to the recent outlook accompanying the
country credit ratings by Standard & Poor (S&P) and Fitch rating agencies, a gradual
economic recovery is anticipated in Bermuda and, based on initial indications regarding
2015 GDP, currently underway. Consequently, a successful IRP must set objectives
that align with economic and stakeholder expectations, as described further below.
Description of IRP Objectives

Throughout the course of the IRP process, a set of overarching objectives were defined
and met. These Global IRP Objectives are as follows:
The IRP process will engage in a holistic evaluation of both quantitative and
qualitative factors, intending to result in a plan that will supply electricity at the
least cost, subject to qualitative factors analyzed herein.
The IRP process will reflect a concurrent evaluation of all possible resources,
including both supply- and demand-side resource options, potential retirements of
existing resources, and diversification of the generation portfolio.
The IRP process will provide an indication regarding the level of distributed
generation capacity that can reasonably be integrated into the BELCO system,
subject to a more detailed technical evaluation, which is beyond the scope of this
effort.
ES-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The IRP process will build upon considerable work already done by BELCO.
The IRP process will be sensitive to government and stakeholder feedback while
navigating logistical and fuel supply challenges.
The IRP process will include a procurement plan with recommendations
regarding whether any resources will be procured through competitive bidding.
The IRP will be designed as a living and recurring process, and will serve as the
main precursor to detailed feasibility studies.
Refer to Section 1 of this report for a more detailed description of the IRP objectives.
Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy

of Bermuda
In June 2015, the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda was released
alongside a statement from the Bermuda Ministry of Economic Development. An
integrated process involving stakeholders from across Bermuda was deployed in order
to develop the policy, which aims to reinforce the central objective of providing reliable,
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The government has
defined four objectives for the electricity sector, as follows:
Least cost and high-quality: electricity service that is delivered at the lowest
possible financial cost, without compromising safety standards or failing end
users expectations for reliability and customer service
Environmentally sustainable: electricity service that, over time, does not cause
economic harm to Bermudas sensitive natural environment, or cause economic
harm to the global environment
Secure: electricity service that is provided using a mix of primary energy options
that are procured from reliable sources and under terms that make Bermuda
resilient to shocks (such as dramatic changes in the availability or price of fuels,
or the introduction of binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions)
Affordable: electricity service that allows all Bermudians to pay for at least a
basic supply, while preserving (where cross-subsidies for ensuring basic supply
are involved) the competitiveness of Bermudas productive sector.
Table ES-1 below provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of resources as
a percent of total energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the policy also
assumes approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side management
initiatives; refer to later sections of this report for further details regarding assumed
demand-side management and energy efficiency options).
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Supply Mix
Fuel/Resource Type 2020 2025 2035

Natural Gas 92% 65% 62%
Waste-to-Energy 3% 3% 3%
Bulk-Scale Solar PV 2% 2% 2%
Distributed Solar PV 1% 2% 6%
Solar Water Heaters 2% 2% 2%
Future Renewable Energy (Undefined) 0% 26% 25%
The policy also contains aspirational mix tables based on demand as well as carbon
abatement targets.
As an objective of the IRP, it was crucial to ensure alignment with the intent and
objectives of the updated policy. As a result of the holistic approach used for resource
planning, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying Assumptions
Document (Section 4 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the aspirational mix within
the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources considered and the
incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. Refer to Section 1 of this
report for a more detailed description of the specifics of the policy and the tactics
deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the policy.
Overview of IRP Cases Considered

Given the various analyses of future load, future delivered fuel prices to Bermuda, and
detailed parameterization of both supply-side and demand-side options as detailed in
Sections 1 and 4 of this report, which should be reviewed in detail and for which this
description herein is not a substitute, Leidos defined seven cases that were subjected to
detailed production cost modeling. At a high level, these cases were generally predicated
upon the following:
Consideration of the desired thermal fuel path, which included traditional fuel-oil
resources, natural gas resources, and propane gas resources;
Consideration of the potential range of the cost of differing fuels over the Study
Period, including commodity, delivery (e.g., ocean transport), on-island
infrastructure (e.g., pipeline, storage, etc.), taxes, and other components
Consideration of the appropriate types and size of renewables, including wind,
biomass and photovoltaic (PV) options, the latter of which included potential
power purchase arrangements;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consideration of the value of energy storage, modeled as a function of a battery

energy storage system (BESS) to displace spinning reserves, potentially reducing
the utilitys reserve margin 1, and support the intermittency of renewable generation;
Consideration of the appropriate scale and type of demand-side resources
management and distributed generation options, including residential solar-thermal
water heaters, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) resource expansion, commercial
PV expansion, and a generic, as yet undefined energy efficiency block that has been
priced to provide credit to the longitudinal benefits of energy efficiency that accrue
to the utility after the initial incentive has been provided to participants, and
Benchmarking and simulation of the Aspirational Mix in the June 2015 policy
document to determine the performance of such a case using parameters developed
in support of all of the other cases.
Refer to later sections and supporting appendices of this report for detailed descriptions
of each of the seven cases, as well as a case matrix that specifically identifies the
resource options that were included in each case, one of which aimed to find the strictly
least cost expansion plan.
At this stage of the simulations, Leidos interacted with the client regarding the
overarching analysis, which included the completion of the qualitative evaluation of
each individual resource option. The following is a list of the qualitative evaluation
criteria, which are defined in section 1.
Supply Quality
Environmental Sustainability
Security and Cost Resilience
Logistics
Economic Development
Subsequent to the initial simulation of the seven cases and the combined quantitative
and qualitative scoring, the Four Finalist Cases were extracted from the list of seven
based on their ranking and plausibility, excluding both the Least Cost Case and the
Aspirational Mix Case. As the Least Cost Case reflected a partial LPG conversion
coupled with energy efficiency, but no new renewables, it was viewed as not meeting a
major National Electricity Sector Policy objective. As the Aspirational Mix Case
assumes that future costs of renewables would be similar to natural gas thermal
resources, it was viewed as not plausible at this time. The Four Finalist Cases are:
Fuel Oil Case (fuel oil-centric expansion plan).
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan).
Partial Conversion LNG Case (most logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion
plan).
1
Refer to other sections of this report for certain considerations related to the distinction between
displacement of spinning reserves and the limitations of current storage technology to fully supplant
operating reserves.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Partial Conversion LPG Case (most logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion

plan).
In addition, a series of sensitivities were conducted on each of the final cases. Table
ES-2 summarizes the nature and objective of each of the sensitivities conducted.
Table ES-2
Summary of Production Cost Sensitivities
Sensitivity Objective(s)
Fuel Cost Determine whether the differential in long-term volatility of
competing thermal options results in a different conclusion
at a higher level of fuel cost, lower level of fuel cost and/or
more robust resource bases for oil and gas extraction.
Carbon Monetization Determine how each case compares in terms of carbon
footprint using indicative carbon pricing.
Cost of Capital Determine the cash outlay differential on a net present
value (NPV) basis should BELCOs cost of capital
fluctuate from baseline conditions.
Reserve Margin Determine the cost savings resulting from assuming that
storage can supplant the spinning component of the
operating reserves and allow for reduced capacity
expansion of thermal resources.
Load Forecast Determine whether higher or lower than anticipated load
growth materially impacts capacity requirements and
costs.
The sum total of the production cost modeling performed on the Four Finalist Cases,
including all sensitivities, as well as the qualitative attributes evaluated across each
possible expansion path and each specific resource option, were combined to derive the
findings in this report over the Study Period.
IRP Results
Results are presented below, firstly for the qualitative evaluation of the individual
resources and then for the production cost modeling of the cases, followed by the
combined quantitative and qualitative scoring and ranking. The process used for fusing
the result of the qualitative evaluation of the resources with the result of the economic
analysis to provide a single score for final ranking and decision-making purposes is
provided in Appendix E2. A weighting factor of 70/30 (quantitative / qualitative) was
judged to be reasonable in combining the scores, subject to further public consultation
and Regulator assessment. Additionally, a table providing the case rankings at
weighting factors of 50/50, 60/40 and 80/20 are provided in Appendix E2. Finally the
results of the sensitivity analysis are presented for the Four Finalist Cases and specific
findings are provided and suggested action items related to the expansion plan are
offered.
Figure ES-2 summarizes the results of the qualitative evaluation for each candidate
resource type.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Energy Efficiency Battery Storage Utility Solar PV Thermal Distributed Solar Residential Solar Offshore Wind Thermal Thermal
/ Demand Side for Spinning with Battery Resources- PV Thermal and PV with Battery Resources - Fuel Resources
Management Reserve Storage Natural Gas / Storage Oil Liquefied
Fuel Oil Petroleum Gas
Supply Quality Environmental Sustainability Security and Cost Resilience Logistics Economic Development
Figure ES-2 Qualitative Scoring Results
The key takeaways from the results of the qualitative analysis are as follows:
The generic energy efficiency/demand-side management resource scored highest at
87.5 percent across all categories. This is a function of the fact that the measures
contemplated are environmentally sustainable, promote energy security and cost
resilience and are relatively easy to implement. Additionally, energy efficiency can
help to engender trust and goodwill between the utility and their customers.
The block of battery storage for spinning reserve has the next highest qualitative
score at 82.5 percent, as a result of very high marks across all evaluation factors,
other than economic development.
The block of utility solar PV, thermal resources utilizing natural gas as the primary
fuel, distributed solar PV, and residential solar thermal and PV have the next highest
qualitative scores, ranging between 60 and 70 percent.
Offshore wind, thermal resources operating on fuel oil, and the same burning LPG
fuel scored 50, 50, and 47.5 percent, respectively. The offshore wind scored low due
to poor supply quality and low economic development. Thermal resources scored
poorly because of the increased handling and transportation risks and the reduced
infrastructure requirement associated with LPG when compared with LNG, along
with low environmental sustainability.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-3 summarizes the estimated levelized costs for all of the cases .
Table ES-3
Estimated Levelized Costs for All Cases ($/MWh)
Levelized Difference from % Difference from

Case Cost($/MWh) Reference Case ($/MWh) Reference Case
Reference/BAU
213.65
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
214.65 1.01 0.5%
(Case 2)
Least Cost
188.59 (25.06) (11.7)%
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
202.67 (10.98) (5.1)%
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
213.00 (0.65) (0.3)%
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion
199.26 (14.39) (6.7)%
LPG (Case 6)
Partial Conversion
205.12 (8.52) (4.0)%
LNG (Case 7)
Table ES-4 summarizes the combined quantitative and qualitative scoring for all of the
cases.
Table ES-4
Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Scoring for All Cases
Weighted Weighted Total Combined

Cases Quantitative Score Qualitative Score Score Rank
Reference/BAU
61.8% 23.0% 84.8% 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
61.5% 29.4% 90.9% 4
(Case 2)
Least Cost
70.0% 23.1% 93.1% 3
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
65.1% 30.0% 95.1% 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
62.0% 24.3% 86.3% 6
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG
66.3% 24.2% 90.4% 5
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG
64.4% 28.9% 93.3% 2
(Case 7)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-3 summarizes the by year cost in dollars per megawatt hour ($/MWh) for
each of the cases. The Four Finalist Cases are shown alongside the Reference Case in
order to demonstrate the quantitative differences of the Four Finalist Cases relative to
Business as Usual (BAU) conditions.
BELCO 2016 IRP

Summary of Estimated Production Cost ($/MWh) by Case
400
300
$/MWh
200
100
0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Case 1 - Reference Case 4 - LNG Full Conversion
Case 5 - Fuel Oil Case 6 - LPG Partial Conversion
Case 7 - LNG Partial Conversion
Figure ES-3 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs ($/MWh) by Year vs. Reference
Case (Case 1)
Table ES-5 summarizes the percent difference of the levelized cost in dollars per
megawatt-hour ($/MWh) over the Study Period between the Four Finalist Cases and
the Referenced Case for given sensitivity scenarios. Note that MWh are inclusive of
energy abated, as applicable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-5
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given Sensitivity Scenarios)
Full Partial Partial
Sensitivity Fuel-oil
Conversion LNG Conversion LPG Conversion LNG
Scenario (Case 5)
(Case 4) (Case 6) (Case 7)
n-2 Reserve
(9.60)% 0.09% (5.73)% (2.90)%
Margin
High Fuel Price (22.54)% (3.28)% (20.05)% (17.28)%
Low Fuel Price 1.97% 1.85% 3.54% 3.12%
High Load
(9.08)% (0.87)% (8.67)% (5.87)%
Forecast
Low Load Forecast (4.60)% 0.58% (3.99)% (1.64)%
High Cost of
(4.07)% 0.16% (5.78)% (3.28)%
Capital
Low Cost of Capital (6.21)% (0.77)% (7.70)% (4.71)%
Low Carbon
(6.35)% (0.81)% (7.44)% (4.98)%
Monetization
Mid Carbon
(6.77)% (0.99)% (7.69)% (5.33)%
Monetization
High Carbon
(7.42)% (1.27)% (8.08)% (5.87)%
Monetization
Refer to the body of this report for a more detailed description of the resources included
in each case.
Findings
Based on the totality of evaluations, assumptions, and dispatch analyses conducted for
purposes of the IRP, the details of which should be reviewed carefully, the following is
a list of findings and conclusions in the form of recommended actions and next steps
relative to the results:
1. The top two ranked cases reflect full and partial LNG conversion (Cases 4 and
7), respectively, as well as renewables, DSM and batteries. While the LNG
cases are more capital intensive than the other cases, they are in alignment with
the June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy and are likely to reflect lower
volatility of fuel supply than the LPG case. In addition, the full conversion LNG
case has the potential for natural gas to serve other uses in Bermuda via a piped
distribution network
2. The third ranked case, the Least Cost (Case 3), reflects a partial conversion to
LPG with energy efficiency resources but no renewables. Accordingly, it

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
deviates from a major objective of the June 2015 Policy and is not a plausible
plan.
3. The fourth ranked case, the Aspirational Mix (Case 2), reflects the addition of
significant renewable capacity based on the assumption that future costs of
renewables would be similar to those of natural gas thermal resources. This case
provides estimated benefits relative to BAU conditions. Given the speculative
nature of the future renewable resource embedded in the aspirational mix,
BELCO continues to monitor developments in renewable generation options and
will work with the Regulator to refine this case in future IRP iterations given
updated information. In particular, BELCO is tracking the development of the
CETO wave energy technology by Triton Renewable Energy Ltd which is
actively working with Carnegie Wave Energy in exploring the potential of a
commercial wave energy farm in Bermuda. Commercial roll out of the CETO
technology for island jurisdictions is anticipated for 2020/2021. With regard to
wind resource, there is a need to execute a wind resource assessment study
comprising a years recording of wind data in order to more accurately quantify
the projected performance of wind resource in Bermuda.
4. The differential in levelized cost across the cases relates primarily to: (i)
commodity price forecast for the candidate fuels; (ii) estimated cost of fuel
transport, storage and processing as necessary; and (iii) estimated capital and
operating cost for candidate resources.
5. The pace at which energy efficiency performance is pursued also drives some
small amount of levelized cost difference amongst cases, but in general, given
the long-term view and likely pursuit of low hanging fruit energy efficiency
measures, such initiatives can be expected to be cost-effective relative to
additional supply-side capacity expansion.
6. The battery for spinning reserve performs well in the LPG-centric case due to
the greater heat rate differential for the combined cycle units involved when
operating at minimum load versus maximum load. This is not the case in the
LNG or reference case, wherein the batterys overall financial performance is
not as attractive due to a far smaller heat rate differential during operation of the
reciprocating internal combustion engine generators.
7. The inclusion of a battery system for renewable support across all 7 cases (if
applicable) does not negate the overall cost benefits (or savings) of the two main
thermal expansion paths (i.e. LNG-centric and LPG-centric) relative to BAU
conditions. This is generally due to the contained nature of the cost of owning
and operating the battery system relative to the total costs of the overall power
supply portfolio, the fuel cost deltas and operational efficiencies of which drive
the majority of cost savings. BELCO should consider deployment of battery
systems that may be able to serve more than one function (spinning reserve
contingency in addition to support for intermittent renewable resources).
8. BELCO should continue to pursue a robust and well-defined energy efficiency
program that attacks low hanging fruit elements of conservation and energy
efficiency activities.. Actual market potential associated with an energy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
efficiency portfolio will be significantly less than the technical or economic

potential of such programs, and consequently, a balanced approach to portfolio
evaluations that involve more detailed cost-benefit analysis of specific portfolio
elements should be undertaken. As evidenced by the expanding cost of the DSM
supply curve as additional incremental amounts of achievement are assumed, a
more explicitly defined portfolio of programs can help lower the cost of
incremental achievement. In response to a directive [EC/BEL-BRDIR-0316]
issued by current Regulator, the Energy Commission, during the development
of the 2016 IRP. BELCO identified that any realistic plan for Bermuda would
require an Achievable Potential Study (APS) that would determine Bermudas
specific achievable savings associated with an Energy Efficiency and Energy
Conservation Program.
9. Based on the qualitative performance of utility-scale solar, as well as the more
advantageous cost estimated for utility-scale solar as compared to the residential
solar thermal and commercial distributed PV options, BELCO should pursue
further investigations regarding utility-scale options, either utility-sourced or via
a power purchase agreement (PPA) arrangement. Given the additional
benefits of PV that relate to sustainable resources and reduced emissions, this
resource should continue to be explored with more detailed feasibility studies
and/or a procurement process related to a solar PPA.
10. As part of the evaluation of the Four Finalist Cases, combined heat and power
(CHP) distributed generation utilizing a reciprocating engine was evaluated.
The sizing of the generating unit was based upon the electric demand load
requirements of a generic customer and the thermal recovery equipment sized to
maximize the thermal energy of the exhaust for providing domestic hot water
heating. The Full Conversion LNG Case, Partial Conversion LNG Case
(logistically plausible LNG expansion plan) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (logistically plausible LPG expansion plan), all retained as part of the Four
Finalist Cases, considered the use of CHP resources. Further detailed study
should be performed to assess the full range of benefits this type of resource may
provide.
11. As evidenced by the Annual Expansion Summary Plan for the Full Conversion
LNG-centric case in Table 3-7, there are certain years when the system surplus
capacity is relatively high, primarily as a result of (i) the nominal capacity of the
base load candidate resources used in the analysis and (ii) the addition of the
solar PV resources to meet the renewable energy target. If deemed necessary,
the rated capacity of the base load resources can be addressed during the request
for proposal (RFP) process when proposals can be invited for lower capacity
units as well as those included in the plan and the final decision made on the
basis of overall economics. Of course, the updated near-term system peak load
forecast must also be considered in making decisions related to the level of
surplus capacity.
12. With regard to the sensitivities performed, the following are the main
implications of such sensitivity scenarios:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fuel Price Scenarios: The fuel price scenarios resulted in the most
dramatic changes in the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases
compared with the other sensitivity scenarios. The Fuel-Oil Case (Case
5) becomes the lowest cost case in the Low Fuel sensitivity because the
price advantage of either LNG or LPG over oil is not great enough to
offset the additional capital required in the gas-centric cases. Conversely,
in the High Fuel sensitivity scenario, the LNG price advantage expands
and the Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) becomes the lowest cost
case.
Carbon Monetization Scenarios: These sensitivity scenarios do not
change the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases due to the
relatively low additional cost imposed by the monetization of carbon
relative to the total production costs. The monetization of carbon adds
from 2% (LNG Cases) to 6% (Oil Cases) to total productions costs. The
benefits of lower carbon emissions from the LNG-centric cases do not
fully overcome the lower fuel costs of the LPG-centric cases in these
sensitivities.
The Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (Case 6) were the lowest cost cases in the sensitivity scenarios
relating to cost of capital, reserve margin and load forecast.
Assumptions and analyses contained in this IRP should be revisited on a recurring basis
in order to reexamine changes in fuel markets and technologies over time. Leidos has
worked to craft a repeatable process that is predicated upon a warehouse of data on
existing assets, load, and other key assumptions that can be adjusted and reconfigured
as new information becomes available. The IRP process should be internalized within
the utility and viewed as a study that is re-executed in the future to determine whether
any revisions to the long-term course of action suggested by the prior IRP are warranted
as a result of changes to fuel prices, infrastructure and generating unit costs, changes in
load expectations, or other key factors influencing the IRP results.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Section 1 focuses on the various
technical methodologies deployed in the IRP. Section 2 summarizes the key
assumptions associated with the IRP. Section 3 provides detailed IRP results, including
the LCOE, production cost modeling results, and qualitative analysis results.
Importantly, Section 3 also provides a planning-level procurement plan for various
resource options as required in the July 2015 energy policy document described above.
Section 4 provides extensive detail on all key IRP technical assumptions.
Additionally, numerous appendices are provided in support of this report. Appendix A
summarizes the load forecast. Appendix B summarizes all pertinent cost and
performance assumptions associated with BELCOs existing resource base and future
resource options. Appendix C provides summary tables of projections for each of the
fuel types considered in the IRP. Finally, Appendices D and E summarize the
quantitative, qualitative and combined IRP results, respectively.

Section 1
IRP METHODOLOGY
1.1 Project Overview

The Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) has engaged Leidos Engineering,
LLC (Leidos) to prepare a rigorous, holistic, and comprehensive integrated resource
plan (IRP) for Bermuda to assist with identification of the costs, benefits and risks of
alternative expansion paths consisting of various combinations of candidate resource
options. The IRP analysis covers the 20-year period beginning January 1, 2017, and
ending December 31, 2036 (the Study Period). The IRP as presented in this report is
one element of an overarching strategy and series of analyses undertaken by BELCO to
ensure that the outcome of this evaluation addresses a wide array of stakeholder
priorities, including downstream rate impacts, estimates of economic activity and job
creation, and the development of a rate timeline commensurate with the intended
resource portfolio suggested by the IRP. This report is bounded by the domain of
analysis for which Leidos was retained, which does not include the latter noted analyses.
Importantly, the IRP as presented in this report is focused exclusively on the cost of
production associated with either serving or abating Bermudas electricity demand over
the Study Period, and does not reflect the translation of estimated production costs into
retail rates for any of BELCOs rate sectors. Such efforts typically follow IRP activities
and are predicated upon the selected expansion plan, which includes the cost of both
supply-side resources that serve load and demand-side management initiatives that cost-
effectively abate load.
Bermuda is faced with a series of significant challenges and opportunities as it navigates
its energy future. In the wake of recently declining loads driven from the global
economic contraction, an aging asset base made up almost exclusively of oil-fired diesel
generation must be replaced with a blend of sustainable, reliable, and cost-effective
supply- and demand-side resources that carefully balance a variety of stakeholder
objectives while maintaining a reliable power grid. Figure 1-1 below summarizes recent
year-over-year changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) and reflects consecutive
declines over the last several years, as reported in the 2015 Ministry of Finance National
Economic Report. However, 2014 and 2015 appear to reflect a potential turning point
in economic activity, given the much smaller contraction in 2014 and the initial estimate
reported therein that 2015 may have exhibited real growth of 1.5 percent or more.

Section 1
Figure 1-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP
Based on Leidos review of the above mentioned reports, as well as supportive material
and information provided by BELCO related to the recent outlook accompanying the
country credit ratings by Standard & Poors (S&P) and Fitch rating agencies, a
gradual and protracted economic recovery is anticipated in Bermuda. Consequently, a
successful IRP must set objectives that align with economic and stakeholder
expectations, as described further below.
1.2 Description of IRP Objectives

Throughout the course of the IRP process, BELCO partnered with Leidos to ensure that
a defined set of overarching objectives were met. Decisions regarding future resources
for this particular iteration of resource planning will have a significant impact on the
future state of power supply in Bermuda, and consequently, care was taken at the start
of the project to generate detailed feedback on goals, so that the execution of the IRP
was strategically aligned with those goals. These Global IRP Objectives are as follows:
The IRP process will engage in a holistic evaluation of both quantitative and
qualitative factors. Historically, resource planning has been focused on finding the
least cost expansion path as defined by the NPV of production cost over a
prescribed study period. This approach, while efficient, fails to recognize that there
may be additional, non-monetary or difficult to quantify benefits of alternative
expansion paths or portfolios. These alternatives may very well serve to meet the
needs of today in a more sustainable manner, help to support renewable portfolio
1-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

IRP METHODOLOGY
standards, encourage economic investment, or be logistically advantageous given

Bermudas island terrain. Engaging in a qualitative evaluation of resource options
and pairing this review with detailed financial modeling of options can serve to
ensure a more holistic perspective when taking downstream action. Additionally,
resource options that may not have been considered historically on the basis of raw
cost, such as combined heating and power options, may actually help lower costs
when a more complete estimate of the implications of adding such resources is
considered (in this particular case, revenues from the sale of byproducts to
participating off-takers).
The IRP process will engage in a concurrent evaluation of supply-side and
demand-side options. The term integrated in integrated resource plan implies that
the plan will engage in an equally rigorous evaluation of demand-side resource
options as it does with traditional supply-side resources. As described elsewhere in
this report, BELCO and Leidos have developed detailed estimates of costs, energy
impacts, and peak demand impacts of a series of demand-side management options
(which by definition can include certain energy efficiency measures), and Leidos has
included these options in the load dispatch modeling in order to carefully examine
the cost implications of abating load through demand-side options wherever
possible. BELCO has provided estimates of uptake potential for each of the demand-
side resource options as well as a generic energy efficiency program block, which
has been assumed to be implemented over the Study Period. Additionally, demand-
side resources as well as the generic energy efficiency block were subjected to the
same qualitative evaluation as the supply-side resources, in order to ensure a fully
equal treatment of options throughout the IRP process.
The IRP process will build upon considerable work already done by BELCO.
Throughout the IRP process, care was taken not to duplicate analyses, and to
leverage existing data developed by BELCO whenever possible. This was
particularly true for data from asset manufacturers, inputs regarding uptake for
demand-side management options, supportive insights on the load forecast,
performance characteristics of existing assets and associated retirement dates, and
existing feasibility studies on certain resource options that were previously
commissioned by BELCO or the Bermuda government. This information exchange
between BELCO and Leidos helped to expedite the planning process and helped to
shed light on the areas of focus in terms of data gaps.
The IRP process will be aligned with Bermudas Electricity Sector Policy and will
be sensitive to stakeholder feedback while navigating logistical and fuel supply
challenges. BELCO has gathered a significant amount of information regarding
current stakeholder perspectives on BELCOs future resource mix. Additionally, as
summarized in detail below, the government has released an updated National
Electricity Sector Policy in June 2015 with which the IRP must align. There is
significant momentum around a more sustainable resource path that includes an
emphasis on demand-side management resource deployment, reduced emissions, the
potential for transitioning to a gaseous fuel as the primary baseload fuel, and having
a certain amount of fuel flexibility in the BELCO portfolio. These priorities must be
balanced with the need to ensure reliable service at a reasonable cost, the urgency of
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-3

Section 1
finding a viable alternative to continued dispatch of an aging existing asset base, and
the logistical challenges associated with delivery of natural gas or other alternatives
to Bermuda (including the significant capital expenditure necessary to do so). As
evidenced by the nature of the qualitative analysis designed for this IRP, as well as
the level of rigor afforded to the estimates of capital cost for certain items, BELCO
has placed an emphasis on obtaining objective estimates of the long term
implications of a wide array of future expansion paths.
The IRP will be designed as a living and recurring process, and will serve as the
main precursor to detailed feasibility studies. Leidos has worked extensively with
BELCO to design a series of input models to capture key IRP assumptions. We have
constructed a customized LCOE screening model as well as a series of repeatable
steps and criteria for qualitative analysis of resource options. We have also prepared
a load forecast and infused the existing BELCO resource base into a production cost
model. All of the inputs to the analysis have been codified in a detailed Assumptions
Document, which forms the basis of Section 4 of this report. Through the
construction of a living resource planning process, we have ensured that as additional
information becomes available and/or as the passage of time warrants additional
analysis, the underpinnings of the IRP architecture can again be leveraged in lieu of
starting over. This living/recurring process is one of the primary goals of the IRP,
and at its core is the ability to revisit the Assumptions Document or any one of the
existing suite of input files and models to make adjustments, additions, or deletions
as deemed warranted. This is preferable to a more short-term focus on obtaining
results for this iteration of the process that would sacrifice the detailed
documentation necessary to render the process repeatable.
1.3 Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector

Policy of Bermuda
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The policy also
defines the boundaries and roles of the Regulatory Authority and the Electric Utility,
creating a roadmap to enable a collaborative, iterative planning effort that fosters further
development of distributed resources and proactively works towards a mature demand-
side management portfolio that can reduce long term energy usage in a cost-effective
manner.
According to the policy document, the planning paradigm for Bermudas long term
electricity sector resource development and procurement will be predicated upon an IRP
process as the foundational basis for making decisions. The utilitys role is defined as
providing bulk generation, as well as transmission, distribution, and retail services, with
additional participation by independent power producers (IPPs) and distributed
generators who may sell electricity to the utility at economical rates and with tariff
structures that ensure that the utility can recover costs plus an equitable rate of return.

IRP METHODOLOGY
The policy also defines an IRP review role for the Regulatory Authority, which will be
overseen by the government. The Regulatory Authority will also be responsible for
processing and considering feedback on energy policy from end-users. If the Regulatory
Authority is not satisfied that the draft IRP meets this Policys objectives, it submits
questions or guidance to the Electric Utility. The Electric Utility responds to questions
and critiques by submitting a revised draft IRP to the Regulatory Authority for
reconsideration. This iterative process continues until the Regulatory Authority is
satisfied with the IRP and it is finalized.
The updated policy goes on to define an aspirational mix of future resources that
essentially encompass the boundary of resource options evaluated in this IRP, including
LNG resources, utility-scale and small-scale photovoltaics (PV), cost-effective
demand-side management initiatives, the continued operation and expansion of the
Tynes Bay waste-to-energy facility, and future additional renewable resources that are
hypothesized to be cost competitive relative to LNG resources sometime in the future.
The policy is careful to note that as the Electric Utility endeavors to complete its IRP,
reviews and revisions to the aspirational mix using the best available data at the time
the IRP is produced are expected as part of the planning process. Consequently,
investment decisions made through the IRP process may differ from those shown in the
aspirational mix, and there are no specific penalties associated with deviation from a set
standard. Table 1-1 below provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of
resources as a percent of total energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the
policy also assumes approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side
management initiatives; refer to later sections of this report for further details regarding
assumed demand-side management and energy efficiency options).
Table 1-1
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Supply Mix
Resource Type 2020 2025 2035

abatement targets.
objectives of the updated energy policy. As a result of the holistic approach to resource
planning deployed, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the
aspirational mix within the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources
considered and the incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. As part
of the policy, an aspirational mix of resources relative to Business as Usual (BAU)

Section 1
conditions is delineated, and the intent of the IRP is to estimate the cost of the BAU
case as compared to alternatives. Additionally, sensitivities with respect to carbon
monetization and other key long term levers can be executed as future IRP scenarios are
defined in partnership with BELCO, and as the IRP process becomes internalized.
The specific tactics that are deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the
policy include the following:
Holistic and diverse examination of feasible supply-side and demand-side resources,
including LNG, LPG, PV, battery storage, distributed generation in the form of
combined heating and power (CHP), and the proposed demand-side management
(DSM) measures described herein, ensure alignment with the long-range
aspirational mix elucidated in the updated energy policy.
Detailed and transparent assumptions regarding load growth, capacity needs,
logistical constraints related to new capacity being integrated into the system, and
the modeling methodology deployed to evaluate the economics of options fosters the
iterative process of review of the IRP as envisioned in the policy.
Tables summarizing resource options cost and performance characteristics as
developed for the 2016 BELCO IRP can be compared to sources and assumptions
compiled as part of the updated energy policys cost estimates for the BAU and
aspirational mix cases.
Production cost modeling scenarios can be deployed to capture the aspirational mix,
recognizing the limitations of the as yet undefined future renewable resource. To
conquer that challenge, the component of the portfolio comprising the renewable
resource has been assumed to be cost-equivalent to LNG, which allows for the
analysis to capture the same cost implications using an LNG deployment case.
The qualitative analysis of each resource option provides further opportunity for
Energy Commission and other stakeholder commentary regarding the indirect
benefits attributable to certain resources.
Emissions rates of key resource options can be used to support scenarios associated
with carbon monetization or other emissions tracking that may be of interest to IRP
stakeholders as the IRP process is internalized.
The June 2015 updated National Electricity Sector Policy includes key assumptions
related to the cost of LNG infrastructure, the cost of future resource options, and the
extent of DSM participation that can be benchmarked to the results of the IRP in the
iterative fashion envisioned as part of the plan.
As noted above, all of these tactics are embedded in the IRP process and consequently,
there is no additional structure contemplated to be needed in order to be in alignment
with the updated policy. The public commentary and challenge mechanisms envisioned
by the policy that will involve IPPs as well as the public are best fostered through the
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report) and the IRP reporting structure used
in this report for the 2016 IRP.
It should be noted that the policy also requires a procurement plan as defined within the
boundary of the IRP. Once the IRP is completed, a detailed procurement strategy and

IRP METHODOLOGY
plan should be developed around the resources that are selected within the IRP for
downstream consideration. BELCO has already engaged in scoping certain limited
procurement activities (e.g., battery storage request for proposals (RFP) process, LNG
facility feasibility study) that can be leveraged to provide procurement guidance across
the entire portfolio. Refer to Section 3 of this report for further details regarding the
proposed procurement plan as suggested by the results of the IRP.
1.4 Load Forecast

Leidos has reviewed BELCOs net energy for load (NEL) and system peak demand
data, generally over the period 2005 through 2015. We have also reviewed the 2015
Ministry of Finance National Economic Report, as well as supplemental data regarding
the trajectory of key industries within Bermuda and their impact on overall economic
activity in the territory. Our review has comprised two parallel efforts, namely (i)
weather normalization of historical data in an effort to quantify the impact of weather
variability on BELCOs load and (ii) review of economic data and projections to
develop a perspective regarding the Load Forecast, including the determination of
assumptions related to uncertainty over the Study Period. Our review has resulted in
conclusions within each realm of analysis, as well as a long-term Load Forecast. The
Load Forecast is predicated upon a reasonable approach underpinned by an econometric
analysis framework that has produced monthly econometric models for BELCOs NEL
and system load factor and a methodology for characterizing load uncertainty. Section
4 of this report contains more specific details regarding the range of activities involved
in developing the load forecast.

Section 1
Figures 1-2 and 1-3 below summarize the results of the load forecasting process.
Figure 1-2 Energy Forecast (GWh)
Figure 1-3 Peak Demand Forecast (MW)

IRP METHODOLOGY
As evidenced by Figures 1-2 and 1-3 above, the Base Case load forecast reflects a long
term growth rate of approximately 0.3 percent per year. The High and Low Cases are
intended to capture the majority of the potential future range of economic activity on
Bermuda, based on an analysis of historical errors in representative economic forecasts.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while the Low
Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-term rate of
decline of 0.4 percent per year. As depicted above, the High and Low Cases reflect an
expanding amount of uncertainty in load levels over the forecast horizon driven from
increasing average errors in economic forecasts of longer horizons. See Section 4 for
further details the regarding the load forecast methodology, data sources, and
assumptions.
1.5 Fuel Forecast

Leidos engaged in the development of a detailed fuel delivery forecast model for each
of the main candidate fuels in the IRP. The purpose of this detailed fuel model was to
expand and enhance the transparency of the fuel forecast and compartmentalize the
components of the build-out, so as to allow BELCO a platform for review and in-depth
itemization of the aspects of the pricing. Appendix C of this report contains the most
recent vintage of the by-year fuel forecast for all key fuels, including the adjustment to
fuel adder costs based on feedback from BELCO. On a broad basis, the following list
describes the key steps involved in the development of delivered fuel price projections
as have been input into the downstream IRP production cost simulations (note: all line
items comprising the detailed fuel projection can be found in Appendix C of this report).
Leidos estimated the Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), Light Fuel Oil (LFO), propane gas
in containers and in bulk (LPG ISO, defined as LPG delivered from the on-island
LPG storage facility in ISO containers, and LPG Bulk 2), LNG ISO with bulk LNG
delivery to the island (Bulk LNG ISO") (reflects a bulk delivery commodity price
and on-island container delivery to customer site), LNG ISO 3 (defined as LNG
delivered from the on-island storage facility in ISO tanks) and LNG Bulk commodity
pricing to be commensurate with the updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) from
the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) for those fuels.
Perspectives in the AEO have been combined with recent period forward markets
information as extracted from New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
commodity price forecasts for near-term strips to better capture a blend between
short-term price fluctuations and long term price level expectations. This was of
particular importance for oil prices given recent period fluctuations in the downward
direction for this commodity. In addition, with regard to the LPG fuel pricing,
BELCO provided fuel delivery prices based on recent discussions with a major fuel
supplier.
2
LPG Bulk has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model for purposes of the Partial
Conversion LPG scenario defined later in this report.
3
LNG ISO has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model. This fuel is assumed to be
deployed only for modeling the CHP candidate resource at this time.

Section 1
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, recent actual fuel commodity price data
for HFO and LFO.
Leidos modeled certain critical fuel cost adders associated with delivered pricing for
Bermuda, including adders for throughput, freight and supply, customs import duty,
and Unesco Tax with regard to HFO and LFO based on data provided by BELCO.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, fuel supplier indicative commodity
pricing for LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel delivered to Bermuda. This supplier also
included fuel cost adders for the LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel supply. Leidos
modeled customs import duty and Unesco tax.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, updated fuel supplier indicative
commodity and delivery pricing for LNG Bulk Fuel delivered to Bermuda
(Potential Supplier Estimate). Leidos modeled customs import duty and Unesco
tax.
The estimated cost and schedule of the LNG infrastructure were developed on the
basis of input from the 2014 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Feasibility Study Report,
which reflected an LNG offloading facility, 10,000 m3 storage tank and
regasification facility infrastructure capital cost estimate of approximately $75M,
with scheduled completion in 2020.
Each of the adders, as well as other values that were provided by BELCO in dollars
per barrel or dollars per US gallon, have been converted to an all-in dollars per
MMBtu using the ratio of MMBtu of fuel per unit input based on Higher Heating
Value (HHV) specifications as provided by BELCO. These adder amounts were
then combined with the commodity price component to produce the final delivered
price forecast for each fuel. In general, cost adders have been escalated at inflation
over the Study Period.
Figures 1-4 and 1-5 below contain a summary of the core commodity component
(without any adders), as well as the all-in delivered price (with adders), respectively,
associated with all of the fuel forecasts prepared for evaluation purposes.

IRP METHODOLOGY
Figure 1-4 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast
Figure 1-5 Base Case Delivered Cost Forecast

Section 1
1.6 Financial and Other Planning Criteria

BELCO provided the following key financial factors for use in the cost analysis:
Inflation 2.25%.
Weighted Average Cost of Capital 9.75%.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital as provided by BELCO is predicated upon
achieving an optimal gearing ratio based on the existing regulatory structure in Bermuda
and is consistent with other international utility benchmarks. It should be noted that
discounted cash flow calculations across the IRP are predicated upon escalation of
nominal dollars over the course of the Study Period, and that production costs are
discounted back to todays dollars using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.
The capital cost escalation assumption is developed from future capital costs escalation
rates included in recent construction contracts, forecasts and information from IHS
Global Insight, Inc. (Global Insight) and Leidos experience in the industry. The
escalation adder used for future capital costs is equal to inflation for the duration of the
Study Period.
BELCOs total installed power generation capacity requirement is established on the
basis of maintaining the ability to meet the annual peak system load without contribution
from the three largest capacity generating units on the system and without serving the
system load component that is served by capacity from the Tynes Bay waste-to-energy
facility (i.e., Tynes Bay capacity can be thought of as a credit to the reserve margin
requirement). The application of this criteria results in a planning reserve margin that
is calculated by the formula:
RM = 3C TB
Where:
RM is the system planning capacity reserve margin (MW)
3C is the total capacity of the three largest generating units on the system (MW)
TB is the rated output capacity of the Tynes Bay facility (MW)
The capacity of the three largest units is used in the formula to simulate a situation where
the largest unit is out of service for planned maintenance, the second largest unit is out
of service for unplanned maintenance and the third largest unit is being operated to meet
the system spinning reserve requirement. BELCOs current operation protocol requires
sufficient spinning reserve to facilitate the instantaneous loss of the largest generating
unit with no resulting loss of load due to under frequency tripping of feeder circuits. For
the purpose of the formula, the Tynes Bay facility is regarded as a firm capacity
resource.
Based on the existing BELCO resource portfolio, the 2016 planning reserve margin was
established as follows:
RM = 3 x 14.3 4.5 = 38.4MW

IRP METHODOLOGY
During the production cost analysis, the dispatch to load model will calculate the annual
capacity reserve margin based on (i) the existing resources on the BELCO system,
reflective of retirements, capacity adjustments as a result of alternate fuel operation and
the planned expansion of Tynes Bay to an export capability of 4.5 MW in 2016, (ii) the
size and nature of resource options that are added, and (iii) the projected system peak
demand. The capacity reserve margin as a percentage of the total installed capacity will
fluctuate based on the capacity of the total installed capacity.
1.7 Existing Resources

Data regarding the operating cost, performance characteristics, and anticipated
retirement dates of all existing BELCO resources have been developed on the basis of
detailed interaction with and information provided by BELCO. Appendix B of this
report provides a full tabularization of all pertinent assumptions associated with
BELCOs existing asset base. Additionally, BELCO provided depreciation schedules
for existing assets to support the appropriate capture of early retirement depreciation
expenses for a limited number of resources as are assumed to be subject to early
retirement for certain production cost scenarios as described further below in this
section.
As is typically the case with remote non-interconnected electric utilities, BELCO must
plan to meet all of its systems power supply requirements, including contingencies,
from its local power generating resources. Over the years, BELCO has applied a least
cost generation planning approach to the selection of power generating resources and at
the current time, the Central Plant reflects a mix of slow speed diesel (SSD), medium
speed diesel (MSD) and combustion turbine (CT) generating units. In addition,
BELCO purchases the power generated by the Bermuda Government owned and
operated municipal waste incineration facility located at Tynes Bay. Based on the
operating economics of the various units, the SSD and MSD units that burn HFO and
the Tynes Bay Waste-To-Energy (WTE) facility are dispatched to cover the systems
base load, the MSD units that burn LFO are operated to meet the intermediate load and
the CT units are operated in a peaking mode. BELCO is projecting the retirement and
replacement of roughly 79.5 MW of existing generating capacity during the next five
years. Table 1-2 summarizes BELCOs existing generation mix.

Section 1
Table 1-2
Existing Power Generating Resource Mix
FY 2014
No. of FY 2014 FY 2014 Percent of
Prime Generating Capacity Energy Capacity Total
Mover Fuel Type Units (MW) (GWh) Factor Energy
SSD HFO 2 23.4 137.1 67% 21%
MSD HFO 6 76.8 403.8 60% 62%
MSD LFO 5 30.5 72.6 27% 11%
CT LFO 7 42.5 23.7 6% 4%
Municipal
WTE Waste 1 1.6 12.5 89% 2%
System 21 174.8 649.7 100%
____________
Key: SSD Slow Speed Diesel WTE Waste-to-Energy
MSD Medium Speed Diesel HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
CT Combustion Turbine LFO Light Fuel Oil
1.8 Demand-Side Resource Options

DSM resource options can include a variety of measures, including demand response
(which can involve certain rate mechanisms such as time of use rates),
conservation/behavioral programs, energy efficiency (EE), and direct load control.
Leidos has worked with BELCO to parameterize a residential solar-thermal water heater
option that is paired with PV as a measure that BELCO has been contemplating and
which has been evaluated as a specific measure in this IRP. The approach to
development of the assumptions for this measure was as follows:
Hourly profiling for the solar thermal water heater system was developed based on
weather data purchased from Weather Analytics, LLC, which provided Typical
Meteorological Year (TMY) 2 (or 15-year based normalized hourly weather) for
Bermuda. This data was coupled with two models to produce an hourly profile of
energy draw (negative) or avoided grid energy (positive), the net of which resulted
in annual energy for the incremental installation. Demand impacts were estimated
based on an analysis of estimated hourly grid avoided demand during the hour of the
BELCO system peak.
The modeling for the hourly profile was a function of the combination of two
separate tools as follows:
The first tool is the System Analyzer Model (SAM), as developed by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through a relationship with
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The second tool is called RET-Screen. This is also a publically available tool
developed by Natural Resources Canada that contains built-in equipment
specifications, including make/model numbers.

IRP METHODOLOGY
The Leidos team utilized the combination of these two tools to derive the hourly
profile used in this analysis.
Various combinations of solar thermal paired with solar PV were designed and
ultimately, a solar thermal pairing with 1,060 watt direct current (DC) PV panels
was selected as the demand side resource candidate. Hourly energy modeling has
been conducted as denoted above to reflect the estimated annual energy that can be
expected from the updated PV panel rating.
The capital cost of a solar thermal water heater system paired with a 1,060 watt PV
panel, which is the sole option retained for IRP modeling purposes, was estimated
by BELCO, and is inclusive of costs associated with monitoring potential pilot
deployments.
Leidos assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty for the mechanical
equipment and modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters. Leidos estimated the
overall fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) over the life of the installation;
those costs are subject to significant uncertainty, and could be as much as two or
three times the base estimate. In addition, Leidos accounted for cost contingency
associated with US mainland versus BELCO cost.
Appendix B of this report provides a complete set of assumptions related to the solar
thermal water heater system. The peak demand and energy impact of this system has
been netted out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-side
resources in a scenario involving DSM, and the cost has been added to the dispatch
analysis as a discrete cost. Uptake of the program is based on information provided by
BELCO.
Based on detailed discussions with the BELCO team, it was determined that in addition
to the solar-thermal paired with PV option discussed above, and in alignment with the
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy, a generic block of additional EE
amounting to an incremental annual achievement of 0.5 percent of BELCOs load, or a
total of 10 percent of load abated through EE by the end of the Study Period, should be
considered as part of the IRP. A more aggressive DSM achievement totaling 1.0 percent
incremental abatement over the first half of the study period was also desired.
As the exact nature and extent of the programs associated with the future downstream
DSM portfolio cannot be known until a DSM program is funded and audits can be
conducted at strategic locations in order to assess technical potential for a range of
programs, it was necessary to develop a planning-level estimate of the costs to design,
deploy, and manage a generic DSM portfolio that can achieve the incremental impacts
desired to be evaluated as part of the IRP. It should be noted that the specific programs
in a given bundle will ultimately drive cost, and that there is a large variation in cost as
a function of the stage at which a program is currently operating; as the low hanging
fruit measures are gradually adopted, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult
for the utility to endorse additionally successful measures that are cost effective.
Consequently, the cost curve for EE (which is the key component of DSM contemplated
herein) programs as a bundle is initially less expensive and gradually escalates to a much
higher cost, particularly assuming incremental achievement in the range of 0.5 percent

Section 1
to 1 percent per year, or as much as 10 percent to 20 percent of current peak demand

ranges over 20 years.
Leidos conducted a targeted meta-analysis of existing literature regarding DSM costs.
The existing literature reflects a vast range of reported costs across programs as a
function of the various stages of program development for best-in-class programs as
compared to programs that are in earlier stages of maturity, as well as due to the
challenges related to apples to apples data sources and reporting. Leidos focused on
more recent sources in our review, generally avoiding literature produced prior to 2012.
In addition to sources internal to projects with which Leidos is familiar, as well as a
high-level cost estimate of the Suggested Initial DSM Programs outlined in Section 4
of this report, the additional recent sources for cost information are as follows:
A May 2014 Report produced by Long Island Power that summarized recent
Efficiency Long Island program costs.
An April 2013 report by the National Resources Defense Council, which reported
cost per MWh saved statistics in the state of Michigan for two utilities as compared
to leading states (NSTAR in Massachusetts and the Efficiency Vermont program).
A February 2013 report by the Public Service of Vermont that provided longitudinal
data on program costs over the period 2002-2011.
A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory that meta-
analyses the cost of saved energy across the residential, commercial, and low income
retail classes across US states.
A March 2015 report by the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
on the average cost reported by public utility programs in the state over the
2013/2014 fiscal year.
Two separate studies conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy in Texas and in Colorado on specific utility bundles of programs.
Based on this collective research, which includes program costs associated with other
Leidos projects as well as the suggested initial DSM programs described in the sub-
section below, we have estimated an all-in cost in $/MWh for the generic EE block.
Table 1-3 represents planning-level annual costs of a generic bundle at incremental
achievements of 0.5 percent and 1 percent per year up to a maximum of 10 percent. As
noted above, we have structured the cost estimate such that incremental achievements
in DSM uptake become gradually more expensive as the Study Period progresses given
that the utility is anticipated to pursue lower-hanging fruit measures up front and work
to expand the DSM program over time. The DSM costs estimated reflect a long-range
view of the cost of measures wherein costs are shown as amortized over an assumed
average measure useful life of 7 years. It is critical to note that these costs are not
associated with any given measure and that specific measure lives will vary once the
portfolio is actually defined. The main intent of the values shown is to indicate that DSM
measures have longitudinal benefits that accrue over the life of the measure, and
consequently, one view of implied costs could be based on spreading the cost to
implement a given measure over that measures useful life. Such considerations will be
made when evaluating DSM in a holistic fashion with the context of a given scenario.

IRP METHODOLOGY
Table 1-3
Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh)
Total Achievement
@0.5% Per Year for 20 Equivalent Level Total Achievement Equivalent Level
Year Years Cost ($/MWh) @1.0% for 10 Years Cost ($/MWh)
1 0.5% 40.18 1.0% 47.95
2 1.0% 47.95 2.0% 58.54
3 1.5% 49.05 3.0% 71.46
4 2.0% 58.54 4.0% 84.47
5 2.5% 59.88 5.0% 98.84
6 3.0% 71.46 6.0% 114.93
7 3.5% 73.11 7.0% 133.07
8 4.0% 84.47 8.0% 153.63
9 4.5% 86.42 9.0% 176.96
10 5.0% 98.84 10.0% 203.48
11 5.5% 101.11 10.0% 209.58
12 6.0% 114.93 10.0% 215.87
13 6.5% 117.57 10.0% 222.35
14 7.0% 133.07 10.0% 229.02
15 7.5% 136.13 10.0% 235.89
16 8.0% 153.63 10.0% 242.96
17 8.5% 157.17 10.0% 250.25
18 9.0% 176.96 10.0% 257.76
19 9.5% 181.03 10.0% 265.49
20 10.0% 203.48 10.0% 273.46
Section 4 of this report provides a more detailed discussion regarding the initially
suggested DSM programs, which reflect measures in both the residential and
commercial sectors. Refer to Section 3 of this report for results associated with the set
of IRP scenarios, which includes DSM considerations.
1.9 Supply-Side Resource Options

The approach to estimating cost and performance characteristics of the range of feasible
supply-side resource options for the IRP consisted of the following overarching
activities:
Capital and operating costs made available by BELCO were reviewed by Leidos as
a guide towards resource parameterization.
Leidos existing relationships with vendors was leveraged to obtain up-to-date
resource cost estimates and performance information.

Section 1
Existing feasibility studies for certain resources that were previously commissioned
by BELCO or the Bermuda government informed estimates of performance and cost,
as appropriate.
In certain limited cases, data from prior procurements also informed the development
of cost and performance assumptions.
Missing or otherwise unavailable cost and performance assumptions were developed
either by BELCO or by the Leidos independent engineering team, the latter estimates
being predicated upon our prior industry experience with similar technologies.
For any conversions of existing assets to alternative fuel types, Leidos partnered with
BELCO to develop conversion cost estimates, as well as to determine which of the
existing units was incapable of a particular conversion.
Resources that were deemed infeasible due to a lack of proven prior deployment,
prohibitive cost, or other logistical fatal flaw were not included in the downstream
LCOE or production cost modeling, but were addressed as part of a supplemental
discussion document describing the current state of each technology in alignment
with revisiting such resources in a future iteration of the IRP.
Section 4 of this report provides a resource-by-resource description of the approach to
development of assumptions for each of the supply-side resource options considered in
the IRP. Additionally, Leidos has prepared a dispatch to load model case matrix that is
included as part of Appendix D of this report that assigns each of the resource options
to a particular production cost case (cases are described later in this section).
1.10 Levelized Cost of Energy Screening

As an initial step in the IRP quantitative analysis process, Leidos performed an LCOE
screening to assess, on a preliminary basis, the economic competitiveness of the
conversion of existing generating units as well as power supply technology options that
are considered to be feasible candidates for BELCO at this time. The LCOE is
calculated as a stream of equal $/MWh payments, normalized over the expected energy
production period for the resource, that would result in the recovery of all production
costs, including financing and a specified return on investment, over an assumed
financial life.
The three basic cost components of the LCOE calculation are as follows:
Fixed costs, such as initial project investment and fixed operations and maintenance
costs. These costs are provided in the tables of Appendix B.
Variable costs, such as variable operations and maintenance and fuel costs. Variable
operations and maintenance costs are provided in the tables of Appendix B. Fuel
costs are provided in Appendix C. The fuel costs used in the LCOE calculations
include customs duty as currently applied by the government of Bermuda.
Financing costs, such the cost of debt and the cost of capital. These assumptions are
provided in Section 1.6 (note: capital costs for resource options can be found in
Appendix B of this report).

IRP METHODOLOGY
In addition, the expected annual energy production is required as a fourth component of

the LCOE calculation. For each resource, the LCOE is calculated over the range of
capacity factors (in 5 percent increments) that the resource is expected to operate.
The results of the LCOE screening exercise are presented in graphical form for ease of
making comparison among the resources. The results of the LCOE screening informed
the construction of the production cost cases described further below in this section.
Refer to Section 3 for graphical output summarizing the results of the LCOE screening.
1.11 Production Cost Modeling

The dispatch to load modeling was performed using the PROMOD platform. The
analysis focused on a series of pre-defined cases, which are delineated fully further
below in this subsection.
The dispatch to load modeling utilized as inputs the cost and performance characteristics
of existing resources as well as all of the candidate resources which were made available
to serve load for the respective cases evaluated. As appropriate for a given case, loads
were represented as net of all DSM impacts (excluding CHP for which the supply side
load projection was adjusted in those cases where CHP is included as a resource as
defined below), after which the expansion path inclusive of DSM was finalized. The
model added resources to serve load as a function of capacity and energy needs given
the anticipated retirement schedule for existing resources, as well as meeting the reserve
margin requirement discussed previously in this section. Costs associated with DSM
resources (including CHP) were added to the production cost simulation results as
discrete costs based on the combination of DSM activities estimated to be undertaken,
combined with the estimated adoption rates/uptake by measure. In the same manner,
the costs associated with the battery option were added to the production cost simulation
results as discrete costs.
Candidate utility scale renewable energy resources were forced in to the dispatch
profile as as available energy based on dispatch profile estimates. Transmission and
distribution costs associated with renewable integration were included in the cost
estimate for these specific cases, as appropriate. Refer to Section 4 and the appendices
of this report for further details regarding cost assumptions and the specific resources
included in a given case.
1.11.1 Production Cost Cases

Case Definitions
Based on discussions with BELCO and the sum total of work conducted as delineated
in this report, the following cases are the subject of the production cost modeling, as
predicated on Base Case 4 assumptions across each of the inputs to the IRP (e.g., load,
fuel). It is important to note that while the definitions below capture certain decisions
which were prescribed, or deterministic in nature, all of the potential resources
4
The BESS system will be modeled at the low end of capital cost estimates (i.e. minus 15%).

Section 1
considered in each case are defined. Some resources included in a case definition
ultimately may not have been modeled within a case as a result of evaluating the LCOE
tool results, among other indicators.
1. Business As Usual (Fuel Oil Case) this case is predicated upon the
following:
a. addition of traditional (liquid fuel oil-fired resources) to replace
existing resources based on assumed retirement dates
b. the capacity expansion will serve load in a manner that minimizes
long term production cost given the available resources in each year
c. BESS resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct
feedback from BELCO
d. CHP resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct
feedback from BELCO
2. Energy Policy Aspirational Mix Case this case is based on a prescribed
set of resource additions that will attempt to mirror, as closely as possible,
the aspirational mix of generation promulgated by the June 2015 National
Energy Policy as released by the Bermuda Government. With respect to the
generic renewable resource that remains undefined, the IRP relies upon the
simplifying assumption that such resource will be equivalent in cost to a
natural gas resource addition in the year in which the policy assumes that the
generic renewable resource will be added. This allows for the modeling of a
generic renewable resource with the same characteristics as the natural gas
option parameterized herein.
3. Preliminary Least Cost Case this case reflects the preliminary least cost
combination of resources as determined by the production cost model as a
function of various simulations of combinations of resources.
4. Full Conversion LNG Case with Renewables and DSM this case is
predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply
to Bermuda, including a pipeline for delivery of natural gas to the
existing central utility plant site and LNG pricing commensurate with
the Potential Supplier Estimate provided to Leidos by BELCO
b. the conversion of certain existing units to operate on LNG
i. the conversion of units E5, E6, E7, and E8
ii. the conversion of units GT5, GT6, GT7, and GT8
c. June 2018 Commission Phase 1 (N1-N3) of North Power Station
(NPS) installation of 3 DF units
i. Initial operation on HFO until conversion to natural gas
(LNG) in 2020

IRP METHODOLOGY
ii. Facilitates the retirement of entire old power station (D3, D8,
D10 and early retirement of D14, D15) and units E1 & E2 in
June 2017
d. January 2020 Commission Phase 2 (N4) of NPS installation of 1
additional DF unit
i. Facilitates the retirement of units E3&E4 in 2019
e. potential new supply side resources operating on LNG of a CT or CC
type to be located at the existing central utility plant site
f. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
g. Utility Scale PV
i. Both the 5 MW-AC and 20 MW-AC build options
ii. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
h. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems
screened out due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out
at 25 cents per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end
of the Study Period and installed in annual increments of
1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20
year horizon
5. Business as Usual (Fuel-Oil Case) with Renewables and DSM this case
is predicated upon the following:
a. Same capacity expansion options for thermal resources as Case 1
b. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
c. Utility Scale PV
d. DSM including:

Section 1
iii. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20

year horizon
6. Partial Conversion LPG with Optimized Renewables and DSM this case
is predicated upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LPG supply
to Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to
accommodate the installation of approximately 60 MW of LPG-
fueled generation resources at a new site, co-located with the LPG
storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of certain existing units:
i. GT 5, 6, 7 & 8 remain on LFO
ii. E5-E8 remain on HFO operation until retirement
c. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
d. Utility Scale PV
e. DSM including:
iii. CHP
year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to
supplement items in (a)
7. Partial Conversion LNG with Renewables and DSM this case is
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply
to Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to
accommodate the installation of approximately 50 MW of LNG-
fueled generation resources at a new site, co-located with the LNG
storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of any existing units:
d. Utility Scale PV (with a capacity of 28 MW-DC (25 MW-AC))

IRP METHODOLOGY
i. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)

e. DSM including:
iii. CHP
year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to
supplement items in (f)
Definition of Final Cases and Additional Desired Sensitivities

In addition to the Reference Case (Case 1), the Four Finalist Cases 5 subjected to the
sensitivities defined below are as follows:
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 4)
Fuel Oil Case (lowest production cost Fuel-Oil expansion plan) (Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG Case (logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG Case (logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 7)
The sensitivities applied to the selected cases are defined as follows:
1. Fuel Cost (based on 2015 EIA AEO range) based on discussions with BELCO,
High Fuel Price and Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on
AEO scenarios that represent the highest and lowest commodity price for each
commodity that underpins the fuel in question. As discussed further in Section
4.8, the scenario that represents the High Fuel Price Case for LFO, HFO, LPG,
and LNG is the 2015 AEO High Oil Case; the Low Fuel Price Case is based on
the AEO Low Oil Case for HFO, RFO, and LPG but is based on the AEO High
Resource case for LNG.
2. Carbon Monetization Leidos has researched an updated March 2016 report
from Synapse that captures a revised view on potential carbon prices this
reports pricing is applied to each production cost models results on the back
5
Per discussions with BELCO, the Four Finalist Cases were selected from the ranking based on the
levelized cost results and were subjected to sensitivity scenarios.

Section 1
end, in addition to reporting related to the actual tons of carbon emitted for each
case.
3. WACC The IRP evaluates 10.5 percent as the high case (reflecting more
upside risk on interest rates and potentially less gearing with less favorable
regulation) and 9.0 percent as the low case.
4. N-2 vs. N-3 This is self-explanatory; however, this sensitivity is NOT applied
to the Base/Reference Case, as there is no BESS considered in the
Base/Reference Case.
5. High and Low Load Forecast The IRP evaluated a High and Low forecast.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while
the Low Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-
term rate of decline of 0.4 percent per year.
1.12 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources

In order to provide a holistic evaluation of the supply-side and demand-side resources,
and to ensure that non-monetary factors that are critical to the success of the IRP but not
quantified in the load dispatch modeling are carefully considered, the IRP process
includes a qualitative evaluation of each candidate resource. The qualitative assessment
criteria used as a basis for the evaluation and the maximum scores that are allocated to
each criterion have been developed specifically for this IRP and reflect BELCOs
interpretation of their significance. The results of the qualitative evaluation were
considered together with the results from the quantitative analysis in arriving at the
recommendations for the action plan arising from this IRP exercise. The importance of
the qualitative assessment is highlighted in the consideration of renewable energy
resources for the preferred expansion plan to address BELCOs sustainability objective,
since the least cost plan based on the quantitative analysis may exclude these resources.
Descriptions of the criteria used for the qualitative assessment along with the maximum
scores allocated to each one is provided in Table 1-4.
Table 1-4
Qualitative Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description Score
Evaluate the degree to which the asset
enhances or reinforces system reliability
1 Supply Quality as a firm resource. 20

2 Environmental Sustainability will cause a reduction in the emission of
Green House Gases (GHG) from 20
electricity generation
contributes to resource/fuel diversity to
20

IRP METHODOLOGY
Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description Score
3 Security and Cost Resilience make Bermuda resilient to shocks
caused by dramatic changes in the cost
and availability of fuel.
4 Logistics provides for ease of logistics and 20
implementation.
5 Economic Development contributes to the economic 20
development for Bermuda with a focus
on job creation.
Total Maximum Score 100
The results of the qualitative analysis are presented in Section 3 of this report. The total
scores gleaned from the qualitative analysis will be combined with the direct financial
implications of the dispatch cases and LCOE screening to inform the findings in this
report in terms of the resource plan that is deemed to be most attractive overall for
Bermuda. It is important to note that in some instances, qualitative factors will bolster
the relative standing of a given candidate resource, and in others, strictly economic
resources may score lower in certain categories as a reflection of BELCOs current
resource planning criteria.

Section 2
Principal Assumptions and Considerations
2.1 Principal Assumptions and Considerations

The results of the IRP as delineated in this report must be interpreted in light of the
following principal assumptions and considerations. Refer to Section 4 of this report
for a comprehensive listing of assumptions in terms of specific values, approaches,
sources, and methodologies. In addition, this report has several appendices that detail
the results of the various precursory analyses necessary to complete the IRP. The
purpose of this section is not to re-summarize such inputs, but to shed light on key
considerations that may impact the results of our evaluations. These considerations are
as follows:
1. Unless specifically denoted in this report, all data taken as exogenous inputs to
the Leidos load forecasting framework, LCOE screening model, and load
dispatch model, including key financial and performance information related to
the existing asset base, or insights on future economic conditions provided by
the BELCO Team, or SMEs retained by either party, is assumed to be
appropriate for the purposes of this analysis. Leidos has not independently
verified the entirety of this data, and to the extent such assumptions deviate from
actual conditions, the results presented herein may concordantly vary.
2. Base-Case fuel projections are based on information regarding BELCOs
existing fuel component costs; information regarding BELCO
contractual/bid/indicative pricing information (as applicable); information
regarding short to medium term futures markets; and the 2015 EIA AEO. This
information is assumed to be appropriate for purposes of this analysis. Any
deviation from EIA forecasted prices or any fluctuations in BELCOs other fuel
component costs could materially impact the relative economic performance of
competing resources, and consequently, the findings in this report.
3. This evaluation does not constitute a technology optimization analysis. Leidos
did not review alternative combinations of technologies relative to the given
future site or sites for deployment to determine if a given technology was the
best available technology given site conditions or other factors, which are
beyond the scope of this analysis. The IRP has been conducted with a level of
rigor commensurate with the expectation that more detailed feasibility studies
associated with the chosen resource portfolio/expansion path would be
conducted to further evaluate siting issues. Leidos has provided additional
support related to the capital cost estimate and siting feasibility associated with
the onshore LNG infrastructure solution, which is subject to further study and
refinement. Leidos has also preliminarily provided review of potential PV sites,
but this IRP is predicated upon the modeling of a range of generic PV options.

Section 2
4. The relationships posited by the econometric models developed to forecast long

term load growth have been assumed to perpetuate into the forecast period.
5. The capital and operating costs associated with the resource options considered
in this IRP have been subjected to review by Leidos subject matter experts. The
values derived for purposes of this IRP assume no significant changes in the
electric utility industry through the end of the Study Period other than those
assumed and set forth in this report. Due to uncertainties caused by variable
factors, including factors that influence the cost of all energy sources, we can
give no assurance either as to the reasonableness of the rates of escalation with
respect to fuel costs and operating costs. Additionally, changes in costs,
technology, legislation and regulation could affect the considerations and
assumptions herein, and it is possible that actual construction estimates for
options that are selected for deployment will differ from those assumed herein.
In particular, future fuel cost and environmental factors could affect the
assumptions underpinning this analysis. In summary, any changes in costs,
technology, legislation and regulation could affect the considerations and
assumptions, which could impact the results of the analysis summarized herein.
6. The price for sale of CHP byproducts was assumed to be equal to the cost of gas
necessary to generate the equivalent amount of heat from the existing back-up
boiler. Given that there is currently no power purchase agreement in place
between BELCO and a viable off-taker, it is possible that the rates assumed for
purposes of this analysis may differ materially from actual rates resulting from
the ultimate agreement, which when finalized will codify prices, terms, and
conditions to off-take byproducts. The potential risks involved with byproduct
sales are herein noted and should be reviewed carefully.
7. A major overhaul of the CHP plant was assumed to not be necessary during the
Study Period, given that the average capacity factor estimated for the CHP
deployment does not result in the approximately 60,000 hour threshold for the
first major overhaul (this would occur subsequent to the end of the Study
Period).
8. Byproduct sales have been assumed to begin coincident with the commercial
operation date of the CHP asset, and concordantly, we have assumed that the
ultimate agreement between BELCO and the ultimate off-taker(s) will be fully
in place prior to the online date of the unit(s).
9. DSM assumptions regarding consumer uptake for distributed PV (both
commercial and residential), as well as the residential solar thermal program,
were based entirely on non-firm estimates of uptake provided by BELCO.
Further analysis regarding market demand for these types of deployments, as
well as alternative economic incentive models, should be the subject of
downstream feasibility studies associated with implementation of one or more
of such resource options.
10. The Base-Case analysis presented herein assumes no carbon tax in Bermuda
during the Study Period.

Principal Assumptions and Considerations
11. Leidos has not reviewed the necessary permits or other compliance requirements
involved in construction of any of the supply-side resource options analyzed
herein; we have assumed that all permits will be procured in a timely manner
consistent with the anticipated online date assumed for each individual resource
option.
12. With regard to any sensitivities that reflect a reduction in operating reserve
margin (from n-3 to n-2), such sensitivities assume that any battery system that
may be installed to offset spinning reserves is not necessarily an appropriate
resource to also supplant operating reserves. However, such sensitivities are
predicated on the notion that new and clean thermal resources are generally
expected to be more reliable, which may allow a reduction in operating reserve
requirements relative to historical levels.

Section 3
RESULTS
3.1 LCOE Results

Figure 3-1 below summarizes the results, on a NPV basis over the study period, of the
LCOE analysis and include in the fuel cost projections the import duty. The natural gas
resource options evaluated in the LCOE analysis are based on the full conversion of the
BELCO generating fleet to operate on natural gas.
Figure 3-1 NPV Summary of LCOE Analysis Results
As evidenced by Figure 3-1, baseload gas resources are generally less expensive than
baseload oil resources and are comparable to converted existing resources, the latter of
which can run on either LPG or natural gas. Additionally, renewable resources are
comparable in cost to traditional peaking thermal assets as the assumed capacity factor
increases, which is in part a function of the fact that such resources do not have any
variable costs of production. Utility-scale renewable resources were found, in general,
to be more cost-effective in this analysis than customer-sited renewables, primarily as a
function of the economies of scale inherent in larger installations. Certain demand-side
resources represent the upper end of cost (e.g., residential solar-thermal with PV
integrated options).

Section 3
3.2 Modeling Results

Production cost modeling results are presented in Figure 3-2, Table 3-1, and Figure 3-
3. These exhibits characterize the most top-level results of the production cost modeling.
Figure 3-2 depicts the annual all-in $/MWh cost of each of the production cost cases
(Cases 1 through 7 as defined in Section 1) over the Study Period. Table 3-1 summarizes
the NPV of each case, and computes the delta (either positive or negative) of the NPV
relative to Case 1 (or the Reference Case). Figure 3-3 compiles the sum total of all
carbon emissions associated with each case over the entire Study Period into a bar chart
comparison. Figure 3-4 shows additional comparison of the carbon intensity, defined as
average CO2 emissions in pounds per megawatt-hour, of each case over the entire Study
Period. Note that MWh values are inclusive of energy abated, as applicable.
BELCO 2016 IRP

400
300
$/MWh
200
100
0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Figure 3-2 Summary of Annual $/MWh Costs by Case

RESULTS
Table 3-1
Summary of Estimated Levelized Cost by Case ($/MWh)
Levelized Cost Difference from % Difference from
Case Reference Case (Case 1) Reference Case
($/MWh)
($/MWh) (Case 1)
Reference/BAU
213.65
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
214.65 1.01 0.5%
(Case 2)
Least Cost
188.59 (25.06) (11.7)%
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
202.67 (10.98) (5.1)%
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
213.00 (0.65) (0.3)%
(Case 5)
Partial Conversion
199.26 (14.39) (6.7)%
LPG (Case 6)
Partial Conversion
205.12 (8.52) (4.0)%
LNG (Case 7)
Comparison of Lifetime Carbon Emissions (Tons) (000) by Case

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
Tons (000)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Figure 3-3 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Emissions by Case

Section 3
3.5
3.0
2.5
kg / kWh
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Figure 3-4 Summary of Lifetime Carbon Intensity by Case
As evidenced by the figures above:

The least cost case (Case 3) is consistent with Case 6, the Partial Conversion LPG
case, but excludes renewables and the battery for spinning reserves.
From a carbon footprint perspective, the Aspirational Case (Case 2) performs best
relative to the reference case, followed by the LNG-centric cases, Case 4 and Case
7) and then the LPG cases (Case 3 and Case 6).
The energy mix of the Four Finalist Cases as well as Case 2 are presented in Tables 3-2
through 3-6 below for comparison to the Aspirational Mix (see Table 1-1) that was
defined in the updated National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda released June
2015.

RESULTS
Table 3-2
Energy Supply Mix Aspirational Mix (Case 2)
Resource / Fuel Type 2017 2022 2027 2036

HFO 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LFO 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 75.7% 64.7% 58.8%
Tynes Bay WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Wind 0.0% 9.0% 8.9% 8.6%
Future Renewables 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 11.6%
Distributed Solar Water Heating 0.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6%
Energy Efficiency 0.5% 2.9% 5.3% 9.7%
Commercial PV 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Table 3-3
Energy Supply Mix Full Conversion LNG (Case 4)

HFO 87.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LFO 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 85.6% 83.6% 79.8%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
Table 3-4
Energy Supply Mix Fuel-Oil (Case 5)

HFO 87.6% 82.5% 79.1% 76.7%
LFO 8.3% 3.1% 4.5% 3.2%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%

Section 3
Table 3-5
Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6)

HFO 87.6% 16.9% 11.9% 3.8%
LFO 8.3% 2.6% 0.6% 1.3%
LNG (includes CHP) 0.0% 7.0% 6.8% 6.7%
LPG 0.0% 59.2% 64.3% 68.2%
Tynes Bay - WTE 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
Utility PV 0.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%
Table 3-6
Energy Supply Mix Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7)

HFO 87% 23% 19% 18%
LFO 9% 5% 3% 0%
LNG (includes CHP) 0% 59% 63% 64%
Tynes Bay - WTE 4% 4% 3% 3%
Utility PV 0% 7% 7% 6%
Distributed PV (PPA) 0% 1% 1% 1%
Energy Efficiency 0% 2% 4% 7%
The resource expansion plans for the Four Finalist Cases are provided in Tables 3-7
through 3-10. The tables show the annual asset expansion and retirement plans by year
and include the surplus capacity balance and reserve margins that guided the
development of the expansion plans. These tables can be paired with the detailed
operations and cost data supplied in Appendix D for each case.

RESULTS
Table 3-7 Full Conversion LNG (Case 4) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Supply Side Resources Demand Side Resources
Existing Capacity New Capacity (Dependable) New Demand Side
Total Total Peak
Existing Supply Demand Demand
Capacity Total New Side Side Peak (Net of Reserve Surplus
Existing Capacity Retired Remaining Resources Added Capacity Capacity Resource Added Resources Demand DSM) Margin Capacity
Year (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (Type) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 133.3 13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N1 * 45.0 178.3 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 30.9
11.2 E2 13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N2 *
13.3 IC_MSD (DF) N3 *
Battery Spin (12 MW)
3.0 Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 107.8 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW) 57.6 165.4 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 18.2
4.5 D14 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
7.0 D3 Battery Spin (12 MW)
7.0 D8 Battery Renew (3.0 MW)
2020 10.1 E3 4.5 150.9 155.4 0.54 EE / EC 4.6 110.7 106.1 35.4 13.9
9.5 E4 2.47 IC CHP
14.3 E5 - Refuel 13.3 IC_MSD Refuel (NG) E5
13.0 GT5 - Refuel 12.7 GT_Refuel (NG) GT5
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2021 4.5 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 151.3 155.8 0.55 EE / EC 5.2 111.0 105.9 35.4 14.6
2022 4.5 13.3 IC_MSD (NG) N4 151.8 156.3 0.55 EE / EC 8.2 111.4 103.2 35.4 17.7
0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 2.47 IC CHP
2024 4.5 152.2 156.7 0.56 EE / EC 11.8 112.0 100.3 35.4 21.0
2.47 IC CHP
2025 4.5 152.0 156.5 0.56 EE / EC 12.3 112.4 100.1 35.4 21.1
2026 4.5 151.9 156.4 0.56 EE / EC 12.9 112.7 99.8 35.4 21.1
2027 4.5 151.7 156.2 0.57 EE / EC 13.4 113.1 99.6 35.4 21.2
2028 4.5 -12.7 GT_Retire (NG) GT5 138.9 143.4 0.57 EE / EC 14.0 113.4 99.4 35.4 8.6
2029 4.5 138.8 143.3 0.57 EE / EC 14.6 113.7 99.1 35.4 8.7
2030 4.5 138.6 143.1 0.58 EE / EC 15.2 114.1 98.9 35.4 8.8
2031 4.5 138.5 143.0 0.58 EE / EC 15.7 114.4 98.7 35.4 8.9
2032 4.5 138.4 142.9 0.58 EE / EC 16.3 114.8 98.4 35.4 9.0
2033 4.5 -13.3 IC_MSD Retire (NG) E5 143.2 147.7 0.59 EE / EC 16.9 115.1 98.2 40.4 9.1
-13.3 IC_MSD Retire (NG) E6
14.3 GT New (NG)
17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG)
2034 4.5 143.1 147.6 0.59 EE / EC 17.5 115.4 98.0 40.4 9.3
2035 4.5 143.0 147.5 0.59 EE / EC 18.1 115.8 97.7 40.4 9.4
2036 4.5 142.9 147.4 0.60 EE / EC 18.7 116.1 97.5 40.4 9.5
Notes:
* Converted to natural gas in 2020
PV - Dependable capacity is 60% of installed nameplate capacity and degrades at 0.8% annually
Battery for spinning reserve backup and battery for renewable support are not counted toward dependable capacity
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 3-7 Leidos, Inc.

Section 3
Table 3-8 Fuel-Oil (Case 5) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)

Total Total Peak
2017 12.2 E1 154.7 - 154.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 7.2
11.2 E2
2018 131.3 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 17.0 148.3 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 0.9
3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW)
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 110.3 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 43.6 153.9 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 6.7
7.0 D3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW)
Battery Renew (3.0 MW)
2020 10.1 E3 90.7 14.0 IC_MSD New (HFO) 58.2 148.9 0.54 EE / EC 2.1 110.7 108.6 38.4 1.9
9.5 E4 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
2021 4.5 D14 86.2 14.3 GT New (LFO) 73.0 159.2 0.55 EE / EC 2.7 111.0 108.3 38.5 12.4
2022 86.2 13.3 IC_MSD (NG) N4 73.5 159.7 0.55 EE / EC 3.2 111.4 108.1 38.5 13.1
2024 86.2 73.9 160.1 0.56 EE / EC 4.4 112.0 107.7 38.5 13.9
2025 86.2 73.7 159.9 0.56 EE / EC 4.9 112.4 107.5 38.5 13.9
2026 13.0 GT5 73.2 73.6 146.8 0.56 EE / EC 5.5 112.7 107.2 38.5 1.0
2027 73.2 73.4 146.6 0.57 EE / EC 6.0 113.1 107.0 38.5 1.1
2028 73.2 73.3 146.5 0.57 EE / EC 6.6 113.4 106.8 38.5 1.2
2029 73.2 73.2 146.4 0.57 EE / EC 7.2 113.7 106.6 38.5 1.3
2030 73.2 73.0 146.2 0.58 EE / EC 7.8 114.1 106.3 38.5 1.4
2031 14.3 E5 44.6 14.0 IC_MSD (HFO) 100.2 144.8 0.58 EE / EC 8.3 114.4 106.1 38.5 0.2
14.3 E6 13.3 IC_MSD (HFO)
2032 44.6 100.1 144.7 0.58 EE / EC 8.9 114.8 105.8 38.5 0.3
2033 44.6 99.9 144.5 0.59 EE / EC 9.5 115.1 105.6 38.5 0.4
2034 44.6 99.8 144.4 0.59 EE / EC 10.1 115.4 105.4 38.5 0.5
2035 44.6 99.7 144.3 0.59 EE / EC 10.7 115.8 105.1 38.5 0.7
2036 44.6 99.6 144.2 0.60 EE / EC 11.3 116.1 104.9 38.5 0.8
Notes:

RESULTS
Table 3-9 Partial Conversion LPG (Case 6) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Total Total Peak
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 133.3 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 21.9 155.2 0.54 EE / EC 3.3 110.0 106.7 43.0 5.5
11.2 E2 3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW) 1.87 IC CHP
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 7.0 D10 112.3 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 53.4 165.7 0.54 EE / EC 3.8 110.4 106.5 47.6 11.5
7.0 D3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW)
2020 10.1 E3 92.7 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 72.9 165.6 0.54 EE / EC 6.6 110.7 104.1 52.2 9.3
9.5 E4 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 1.87 IC CHP
2021 4.5 D14 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 73.3 161.5 0.55 EE / EC 7.2 111.0 103.9 52.2 5.4
1.87 IC CHP
2024 88.2 74.2 162.4 0.56 EE / EC 11.0 112.0 101.0 52.2 9.2
2025 88.2 74.0 162.2 0.56 EE / EC 11.6 112.4 100.8 52.2 9.2
2026 13.0 GT5 75.2 GT New (LPG) 87.6 162.8 0.56 EE / EC 12.2 112.7 100.6 52.2 10.0
2027 75.2 87.4 162.6 0.57 EE / EC 12.7 113.1 100.3 52.2 10.1
2028 75.2 87.3 162.5 0.57 EE / EC 13.3 113.4 100.1 52.2 10.2
2029 75.2 87.2 162.4 0.57 EE / EC 13.9 113.7 99.9 52.2 10.3
2030 75.2 87.0 162.2 0.58 EE / EC 14.4 114.1 99.6 52.2 10.4
2031 14.3 E5 46.6 18.9 CC (1x1) New (LPG) 105.8 152.4 0.58 EE / EC 15.0 114.4 99.4 52.2 0.8
14.3 E6
2032 46.6 105.7 152.3 0.58 EE / EC 15.6 114.8 99.2 52.2 0.9
2033 46.6 105.5 152.1 0.59 EE / EC 16.2 115.1 98.9 52.2 1.0
2034 46.6 105.4 152.0 0.59 EE / EC 16.8 115.4 98.7 52.2 1.1
2035 46.6 105.3 151.9 0.59 EE / EC 17.4 115.8 98.4 52.2 1.3
2036 46.6 105.2 151.8 0.60 EE / EC 18.0 116.1 98.2 52.2 1.4
Notes:

Section 3
Table 3-10 Partial Conversion LNG (Case 7) Annual Expansion Plan Summary (MW)
Total Total Peak
2017 156.7 - 156.7 0.53 EE / EC 0.5 109.7 109.1 38.4 9.2
2018 12.2 E1 144.5 3.0 Battery Spin (12 MW) 3.0 147.5 0.54 EE / EC 1.1 110.0 109.0 38.4 0.1
Utility PV (5 MW)
2019 11.2 E2 133.3 12.0 Utility PV (20 MW) 15.6 148.9 0.54 EE / EC 1.6 110.4 108.8 38.4 1.7
2020 7.0 D3 92.7 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 67.8 160.5 0.54 EE / EC 4.6 110.7 106.1 47.1 7.3
7.0 D8 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 2.47 IC CHP
7.0 D10 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG)
10.1 E3 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW)
9.5 E4
2021 4.5 D14 88.2 0.6 Distributed PV (1 MW) 68.2 156.4 0.55 EE / EC 5.2 111.0 105.9 47.1 3.5
2.47 IC CHP
2024 88.2 69.1 157.3 0.56 EE / EC 11.8 112.0 100.3 47.1 9.9
2.47 IC CHP
2025 88.2 68.9 157.1 0.56 EE / EC 12.3 112.4 100.1 47.1 10.0
2026 13.0 GT5 75.2 14.4 GT New (ng) 83.2 158.4 0.56 EE / EC 12.9 112.7 99.8 47.1 11.4
2027 75.2 83.0 158.2 0.57 EE / EC 13.4 113.1 99.6 47.1 11.5
2028 75.2 82.9 158.1 0.57 EE / EC 14.0 113.4 99.4 47.1 11.6
2029 75.2 82.8 158.0 0.57 EE / EC 14.6 113.7 99.1 47.1 11.7
2030 75.2 82.6 157.8 0.58 EE / EC 15.2 114.1 98.9 47.1 11.8
2031 14.3 E5 46.6 17.2 CC (1x1) New (NG) 99.7 146.3 0.58 EE / EC 15.7 114.4 98.7 47.1 0.5
14.3 E6
2032 46.6 99.6 146.2 0.58 EE / EC 16.3 114.8 98.4 47.1 0.6
2033 46.6 99.4 146.0 0.59 EE / EC 16.9 115.1 98.2 47.1 0.7
2034 46.6 99.3 145.9 0.59 EE / EC 17.5 115.4 98.0 47.1 0.9
2035 46.6 99.2 145.8 0.59 EE / EC 18.1 115.8 97.7 47.1 1.0
2036 46.6 99.1 145.7 0.60 EE / EC 18.7 116.1 97.5 47.1 1.1
Notes:

RESULTS
3.3 Sensitivity Analysis Results

Figure 3-5 summarizes the by year cost of each of the Four Finalist Cases, as well as
the Reference Case (defined as Case 1 of the 7 cases). This is a subset of the graph above
and reflects the lowest cost, logistically plausible version of each of the main thermal
options, inclusive of the other resource options as defined in Section 1. Table 3-11
summarizes the change in levelized cost in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh) over
the Study Period resulting from each of the sensitivities that were applied to the Four
Finalist Cases relative to the levelized cost estimated using base case conditions.
BELCO 2016 IRP

400
300
$/MWh
200
100
0
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Case 1 - Reference Case 4 - LNG Full Conversion
Case 5 - Fuel Oil Case 6 - LPG Partial Conversion
Case 7 - LNG Partial Conversion
Figure 3-5 Summary of Four Finalist Cases Costs by Year vs. Reference Case

Section 3
Table 3-11
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Results for Four Finalist Cases
(Percent Cost Deltas from Reference Case (Case 1) for Given Sensitivity Scenarios)
Full Partial Partial

Fuel-oil
Sensitivity Conversion LNG Conversion LPG Conversion LNG
(Case 5)
(Case 4) (Case 6) (Case 7)
n-2 Reserve
(9.60)% 0.09% (5.73)% (2.90)%
Margin
High Fuel Case (22.54)% (3.28)% (20.05)% (17.28)%
Low Fuel Case 1.97% 1.85% 3.54% 3.12%
High Load
(9.08)% (0.87)% (8.67)% (5.87)%
Forecast
Low Load
(4.60)% 0.58% (3.99)% (1.64)%
Forecast
High Cost of
(4.07)% 0.16% (5.78)% (3.28)%
Capital
Low Cost of
(6.21)% (0.77)% (7.70)% (4.71)%
Capital
Low Carbon
(6.35)% (0.81)% (7.44)% (4.98)%
Monetization
Mid Carbon
(6.77)% (0.99)% (7.69)% (5.33)%
Monetization
High Carbon
(7.42)% (1.27)% (8.08)% (5.87)%
Monetization
Refer to a later subsection herein for a list of findings and conclusions resulting from
our analysis. Additionally, Appendix D contains detailed graphical and tabular results
for each defined case as well as the sensitivities applied, including capacity and energy
mix and balance, pro forma summaries of system cost, as well as by-unit operations and
cost summaries for both existing and new resources.
3.4 Qualitative Evaluation Results

Figure 3-6 below depicts the results of the qualitative analysis for the candidate resource
categories. A detailed qualitative evaluation matrix is provided in Appendix E.
3-12 Leidos, Inc. _

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16
RESULTS
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Energy Efficiency Battery Storage Utility Solar PV Thermal Distributed Solar Residential Solar Offshore Wind Thermal Thermal
/ Demand Side for Spinning with Battery Resources- PV Thermal and PV with Battery Resources - Fuel Resources
Management Reserve Storage Natural Gas / Storage Oil Liquefied
Fuel Oil Petroleum Gas
Supply Quality Environmental Sustainability Security and Cost Resilience Logistics Economic Development
Figure 3-6 Qualitative Scoring Results
The key takeaways from the results of the qualitative analysis are as follows:
The generic energy efficiency/demand-side management resource scored highest at
87.5 percent across all categories. This is a function of the fact that the measures
contemplated are environmentally sustainable, promote energy security and cost
resilience and are relatively easy to implement. Additionally, energy efficiency can
help to engender trust and goodwill between the utility and their customers.
The block of battery storage for spinning reserve has the next highest qualitative
score at 82.5 percent, as a result of very high marks across all evaluation factors,
other than economic development.
The block of utility solar PV, thermal resources utilizing natural gas as the primary
fuel, distributed solar PV, and residential solar thermal and PV have the next highest
qualitative scores, ranging between 60 and 70 percent.
Offshore wind, thermal resources operating on fuel oil, and the same burning LPG
fuel scored 50, 50, and 47.5 percent, respectively. The offshore wind scored low due
to poor supply quality and low economic development. Thermal resources scored
poorly because of the increased handling and transportation risks and the reduced
infrastructure requirement associated with LPG when compared with LNG, along
with low environmental sustainability.
_
2016 BELCO IRP Final Report 06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 3-13
Section 3
3.5 Findings and Conclusions

3.5.1 Evaluation Methodology
Leidos worked with BELCO to develop a method for computing a single ranking score
for each case composed of a quantitative and qualitative attribute. The quantitative
attribute is based on the economic analysis and is represented by the NPV result from
the ProMod analysis. The qualitative attribute is based on the results of the qualitative
evaluation. Both methods are discussed in detail earlier in this section of the Report.
The following discussion describes the methodology for computing a single ranking
score using a weighted scoring mechanism. The resulting case rankings are also
presented.
The quantitative attribute is computed by applying a percentage score to the results of
the economic evaluation. The case with the lowest base scenario NPV annual cost is
assigned a score of 100 percent and the scores assigned to the other cases are scaled
based on the respective NPV costs relative to the lowest cost base scenario. This score
constitutes the Raw Quantitative Score.
The qualitative attribute is comprised of two factors: (i) the proportion of energy
generated over the study period by resource type and (ii) the qualitative score of the
respective resource type. For each case, the long term average of the annual percent of
energy generation by resource type is computed over the study period. The sum-product
of the long term averages and the respective qualitative scores is then computed. The
qualitative scores of the cases are then normalized by computing the ratio of the
qualitative scores against the highest qualitative score. These normalized values
represent the Raw Qualitative Cost of each Case.
The Raw Quantitative Score and the Raw Qualitative Score are then combined using a
weighting of 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively. The resulting weighted score is
the case rank. The case rank is the comparative value used to identify the performance
of each case as compared to all othercases. Table 3-12 demonstrates the case rank across
all base scenarios. A detailed overall scoring table is provided in Appendix E.
3-14 Leidos, Inc. _

RESULTS
Table 3-12
Summary of Case Overall Ranking
Weighted Weighted Total Combined

Case Quantitative Score Qualitative Score Score Rank
Reference/BAU
61.8% 23.0% 84.8% 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
61.5% 29.4% 90.9% 4
(Case 2)
Least Cost
70.0% 23.1% 93.1% 3
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
65.1% 30.0% 95.1% 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
62.0% 24.3% 86.3% 6
(Case 5)
66.3% 24.2% 90.4% 5
(Case 6)
64.4% 28.9% 93.3% 2
(Case 7)
In order to provide an indication regarding the sensitivity of the overall results to these
weights, Table 3-13 provides alternative case rankings reflecting varying weighting
factors for quantitative versus qualitative scoring, based on the Base Scenario results.
As shown below, the LNG cases (Case 4 and Case 7) score among the top 2-3 cases
across all weights shown. The Least Cost Case scores successively poorer as the
weighting between quantitative and qualitative scores approach parity, setting aside the
fact that this expansion plan does not meet a major objective of the June 2015 National
Policy Plan. Overall, the rankings are not particularly sensitive to the weights.
_
Section 3
Table 3-13
Sensitivity of Overall Ranking to Weighting Factors
Quantitative / Qualitative Weight
80/20 70/30 60/40 50/50

Case
Reference/BAU
7 7 7 7
(Case1)
Aspirational Mix
5 4 3 3
(Case 2)
Least Cost
1 3 4 4
(Case 3)
Full Conversion LNG
2 1 1 1
(Case 4)
Fuel-oil
6 6 6 6
(Case 5)
4 5 5 5
(Case 6)
3 2 2 2
(Case 7)
3.5.2 Conclusions
Based on the totality of evaluations, assumptions, and dispatch analyses conducted for
purposes of the IRP, the details of which should be reviewed carefully, the following is
a list of findings and conclusions in the form of recommended actions and next steps
relative to the results:
1. The top two ranked cases reflect full and partial LNG conversion (Cases 4 and
7), respectively, as well as renewables, DSM and batteries. While the LNG
cases are more capital intensive than the other cases, they are in alignment with
the June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy and are likely to reflect lower
volatility of fuel supply relative to LPG or fuel oilcases. In addition, the full
conversion LNG case has the potential for natural gas to serve other uses in
Bermuda via a piped distribution network.
2. The third ranked case, the Least Cost (Case 3), reflects a partial conversion to
LPG with energy efficiency resources but no renewables. Accordingly, it
deviates from a major objective of the June 2015 Policy and is not a plausible
plan.
3. The fourth ranked case, the Aspirational Mix (Case 2), reflects the addition of
significant renewable capacity based on the assumption that future costs of
renewables would be similar to those of natural gas thermal resources. This case
provides estimated benefits relative to BAU conditions. Given the speculative
nature of the future renewable resource embedded in the aspirational mix,
3-16 Leidos, Inc. _

RESULTS
BELCO should continue to monitor developments in renewable generation

options and work with the Government to refine this case in future IRP iterations
given updated information.
4. The differential in levelized cost across the cases relates primarily to: (i)
commodity price forecast for the candidate fuels; (ii) estimated cost of fuel
transport, storage and processing as necessary; and (iii) estimated capital and
operating cost for candidate resources.
5. The pace at which energy efficiency performance is pursued also drives some
small amount of levelized cost difference amongst cases, but in general, given
the long-term view and likely pursuit of low hanging fruit energy efficiency
measures, such initiatives can be expected to be cost-effective relative to
additional supply-side capacity expansion.
6. The battery for spinning reserve performs well in the LPG-centric case due to
the greater heat rate differential for the combined cycle units involved when
operating at minimum load versus maximum load. This is not the case in the
LNG or reference case, wherein the batterys overall financial performance is
not as attractive due to a far smaller heat rate differential during operation of the
reciprocating internal combustion engine generators.
7. The inclusion of a battery system for renewable support across all 7 cases (if
applicable) does not negate the overall cost benefits (or savings) of the two main
thermal expansion paths (i.e. LNG-centric and LPG-centric) relative to BAU
conditions. This is generally due to the contained nature of the cost of owning
and operating the battery system relative to the total costs of the overall power
supply portfolio, the fuel cost deltas and operational efficiencies of which drive
the majority of cost savings. Consideration should be given to installation of
battery systems that may be able to serve more than one function (spinning
reserve contingency in addition to support for intermittent renewable resources).
8. BELCO should continue to pursue a robust and well-defined energy efficiency
program that attacks low hanging fruit elements of conservation and energy
efficiency activities.. Actual market potential associated with an energy
efficiency portfolio will be significantly less than the technical or economic
potential of such programs, and consequently, a balanced approach to portfolio
evaluations that involve more detailed cost-benefit analysis of specific portfolio
elements should be undertaken. As evidenced by the expanding cost of the DSM
supply curve as additional incremental amounts of achievement are assumed, a
more explicitly defined portfolio of programs can help lower the cost of
incremental achievement. In response to a directive [EC/BEL-BRDIR-0316]
issued by current Regulator, the Energy Commission, during the development
of the 2016 IRP. BELCO identified that any realistic plan for Bermuda would
require an Achievable Potential Study (APS) that would determine Bermudas
specific achievable savings associated with an Energy Efficiency and Energy
Conservation Program.
9. Based on the qualitative performance of utility-scale solar, as well as the more
advantageous cost estimated for utility-scale solar as compared to the residential
_
Section 3
solar thermal and commercial distributed PV options, BELCO should pursue

further investigations regarding utility-scale options, either utility-sourced or via
a power purchase agreement (PPA) arrangement. Given the additional
benefits of PV that relate to sustainable resources and reduced emissions, this
resource should continue to be explored with more detailed feasibility studies
and/or a procurement process related to a solar PPA.
10. As part of the evaluation of the Four Finalist Cases, combined heat and power
(CHP) distributed generation utilizing a reciprocating engine was evaluated.
The sizing of the generating unit was based upon the electric demand load
requirements of a generic customer and the thermal recovery equipment sized to
maximize the thermal energy of the exhaust for providing domestic hot water
heating. The Full Conversion LNG Case, Partial Conversion LNG Case
(logistically plausible LNG expansion plan) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (logistically plausible LPG expansion plan), all retained as part of the Four
Finalist Cases, considered the use of CHP resources. Further detailed study
should be performed to assess the full range of benefits this type of resource may
provide.
11. As evidenced by the Annual Expansion Summary Plan for the Full Conversion
LNG-centric case in Table 3-7, there are certain years when the system surplus
capacity is relatively high, primarily as a result of (i) the nominal capacity of the
base load candidate resources used in the analysis and (ii) the addition of the
solar PV resources to meet the renewable energy target. If deemed necessary,
the rated capacity of the base load resources can be addressed during the request
for proposal (RFP) process when proposals can be invited for lower capacity
units as well as those included in the plan and the final decision made on the
basis of overall economics. Of course, the updated near-term system peak load
forecast must also be considered in making decisions related to the level of
surplus capacity.
12. With regard to the sensitivities performed, the following are the main
implications of such additional scenarios:
Fuel Price Scenarios: The fuel price scenarios resulted in the most
dramatic changes in the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases
compared with the other sensitivity scenarios. The Fuel-Oil Case (Case
5) becomes the lowest cost case in the Low Fuel sensitivity because the
price advantage of either LNG or LPG over oil is not great enough to
offset the additional capital required in the gas-centric cases. Conversely,
in the High Fuel sensitivity scenario, the LNG price advantage expands
and the Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) becomes the lowest cost
case.
Carbon Monetization Scenarios: These sensitivity scenarios do not
change the quantitative ranking of the Four Finalist Cases due to the
relatively low additional cost imposed by the monetization of carbon
relative to the total production costs. The monetization of carbon adds
from 2% (LNG Cases) to 6% (Oil Cases) to total productions costs. The
3-18 Leidos, Inc. _

RESULTS
benefits of lower carbon emissions from the LNG-centric cases do not

fully overcome the lower fuel costs of the LPG-centric cases in these
sensitivities.
The Full Conversion LNG Case (Case 4) and the Partial Conversion LPG
Case (Case 6) were the lowest cost cases in the sensitivity scenarios
relating to cost of capital, reserve margin and load forecast.
The assumptions and analyses contained in this IRP should be revisited on a recurring
basis in order to reexamine changes in fuel markets and technologies over time. Leidos
has worked to craft a repeatable process that is predicated upon a warehouse of data on
existing assets, load, and other key assumptions that can be adjusted and reconfigured
as new information becomes available. The IRP process should be internalized within
BELCO and viewed as a study that is re-executed in the future to determine whether
any revisions to the long-term course of action suggested by the prior IRP are warranted
as a result of changes to fuel prices, infrastructure and generating unit costs, changes in
load expectations, or other key factors influencing the IRP results.
3.6 Procurement Plan

3.6.1 Procurement Plan Overview
The effective achievement of the objectives established by BELCO for the IRP process
is highly dependent on the successful acquisition and integration of resources in
accordance with the preferred capacity expansion plan (Preferred Plan) to be determined
by the IRP Regulatory approval process. This 5-year procurement plan outlines a
recommended series of activities related to the procurement approach on a resource
basis, the steps for which can be followed as a function of the resources that are retained
within the Preferred Plan as indicated by the entirety of the analyses comprising this
IRP (LCOE screening, production cost modeling of cases, and qualitative evaluation).
The procurement plan addresses those resource items with in-service dates that are
planned to occur during the first five years of the planning period and serves as a guide
for the next steps to be taken by BELCO on its continued quest to fulfill its load serving
obligations to customers.
3.6.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Supply

On behalf of the Ascendant Group, Leidos in partnership with CH-IV International,
performed a study to examine the feasibility of and develop cost estimates for providing
facilities associated with the offloading, storage and regasification of LNG at an existing
petroleum bulk storage facility in Bermuda. The study also included the development
of a conceptual plan for the installation of a pipeline for use in transporting natural gas
to the BELCO central plant facility. The required capacity of the LNG and gas pipeline
facilities was based on converting the existing thermal resources to natural gas operation
and including only natural gas-fired thermal candidate resources in the IRP process.
The study determined that it is feasible to develop a project to import bulk LNG and
provide natural gas in the required volume to the BELCO power plant. Capital and
_
Section 3
operating cost estimates for the associated facilities were used in developing the
projected delivered cost of natural gas for use in the IRP.
The estimated duration for the development of the LNG offloading, storage and
regasification facilities project is approximately 3.5 years from the commencement of
front end engineering design (FEED) activities. Thus, in order to achieve entry into
service of the facilities by January 1, 2020 as proposed in the IRP, FEED activities
should commence immediately, including the development of a detailed schedule of
activities with a view to developing a detailed project schedule based on current
information. Any delay in initiating the LNG facilities project is likely to adversely
impact the January 1, 2020 scheduled entry into service date as the construction of the
offloading, storage and regasification facilities are on the critical path.
One major element of the LNG supply project is the procurement of LNG commodity
and delivery in bulk by ocean tankers to the port in Bermuda. BELCO is exploring
sourcing LNG indexed to Henry-Hub from the United States or Caribbean region.
The conceptual design for the LNG supply project includes the co-location of a nominal
50 MW of base load natural gas-fired resource at the LNG storage site. This aspect of
the project requires additional assessment regarding potential issues such as the
availability and cost of the site and permitting requirements, prior to finalizing the
project definition and initiating procurement activities.
3.6.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Supply

Under the LPG fuel supply case, LPG would be delivered to Bermuda in bulk ocean
tankers and stored at an existing petroleum products bulk storage facility. Unlike the
LNG supply cases, a detailed feasibility study has not been undertaken to develop a
conceptual plan along with project development cost estimates. Should BELCO decide
to give this option further consideration, the first order of business would be to perform
such a study. The study would include the evaluation of an option to co-locate LPG
fired generating units at the storage facility. A LPG supply plan could leverage existing
on island petroleum storage capacity but additional storage capacity would be required
to support LPG for power generation.
3.6.4 Thermal Resources

Under the Full Conversion LNG fuel supply alternative, BELCO proposes to:
(i) continue operating the existing central plant thermal units on fuel oil until retirement
and (ii) select future thermal resources from candidates that are designed to burn natural
gas as the primary fuel and fuel oil as a secondary fuel and locate such units at the
existing central utility plant site and the site of the LNG offloading and storage facility.
Under the Partial Conversion LPG and LNG fuel supply alternatives, BELCO proposes
to: (i) continue operating the existing central plant thermal units on fuel oil until
retirement and (ii) select future thermal resources from candidates that are designed to
burn propane or natural gas (as applicable) and collocate such units at the site of the
LPG or LNG offloading and storage facility.
3-20 Leidos, Inc. _

RESULTS
As a result of previous generating plant procurement exercises, BELCO has developed

a comprehensive shortlist of engineer, procure and construct (EPC) contractors for
CT and RICE technologies. This shortlist should be reviewed and amended as
appropriate to establish a list of invitees for participation in the request for proposals
process. BELCO will engage the services of an owners consulting engineer to provide
assistance in areas such as: Plant specification and RFP preparation, proposal
evaluation, and construction monitoring.
3.6.5 Utility Scale Solar PV

BELCO anticipates that the utility scale solar PV resource will be procured through an
RFP process that will be conducted under the auspices of the government of Bermuda.
The selected developer for the project will own and operate the plant, as an Independent
Power Producer (IPP), and supply power to BELCO in accordance with the terms of
a power purchase agreement. Any energy storage equipment that is required to address
the intermittency of the solar PV resource will be specified in the RFP and provided by
the developer..
3.6.6 Battery Energy Storage

BELCO plans to engage the services of an engineering consultant with subject matter
expertise in battery energy storage systems (BESS) to facilitate the procurement of
the battery system to serve as spinning reserve for the electric system instead of
operating a thermal unit for that purpose. Additionally, a BESS for renewable support
is contemplated. Activities that will be undertaken by the consultant in conjunction with
BELCO related to both types of battery systems include:
Review Information Compiled by the BELCO Working Group
Prepare BESS Technical Specifications and RFP Package
Prequalify Bidders
Facilitate RFP Process
Prepare Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate Proposals
The estimated duration of the procurement exercise leading to an EPC contract award
is approximately six months, and the EPC contract execution period is estimated to be
ten to twelve months.
3.6.7 CHP
BELCO plans to locate an as yet undefined and currently generically parameterized
CHP resource at a major commercial customers site such as a large hotel where the
electric power output would supply a portion of the customers electric load and a waste
heat recovery component would provide thermal energy in support of space heating and
domestic hot water requirements. A broad outline of the steps that would be undertaken
by BELCO as a part of the procurement process for this resource are as follows:
_
Section 3
Evaluate and Shortlist Candidate Customers

Perform Detailed Feasibility Study and Develop Design Concept and Estimated
Capital and Operating Costs
Execute Agreement with Host Customer
Execute RFP Process and award EPC Contract
Monitor Project Construction and Commissioning
3.6.8 Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation/Demand Side

Management
The typical activities that are necessary to support the development of an EE & EC/DSM
Program Plan include the following:
Data Gathering and Goal Refinement
Demand Response System Interface Requirements (to the extent demand response
is considered as a portfolio item)
EE & EC/DSM Program Measure Assessment
Funding Analysis
Monitoring and Verification
Additional Resources and Change Management Plan
Communication & Stakeholder Engagement Activities
Final Program Plan
Ongoing Implementation Support
In accordance with a directive from the regulator, BELCO intends to submit a plan to
collaborate with key stakeholders in order to implement an EE & EC/DSM program.
3.6.9 5 MWac Solar PV Power Purchase Agreement

The procurement and negotiation of a PPA for distributed solar PV, which is similar in
nature to the battery energy storage system process, should generally comprise the
following key activities:
A Request for Information (RFI) or equivalent outreach process should be
engaged in that will help BELCO identify interested potential bidders to the
request for proposal (RFP) process. This RFI will afford BELCO and other
stakeholders the opportunity to raise several high level questions that can help
filter out credible bidders based on their responses to technical, logistical, siting,
and financial terms and conditions that would need to be considered when
negotiating an actual contract for output.
A technical specification should be developed that highlights the available
and/or preferred siting and other key technical nuances related to third party
3-22 Leidos, Inc. _

RESULTS
construction that falls outside of the terms and conditions of the PPA
arrangement.
A draft PPA should be prepared that outlines BELCOs preferred terms and
conditions for pricing and scheduling of energy delivery, as well as the key legal
and financial terms and conditions associated with the agreement, including
damages in the event of default, force majeure conditions, and all other standard
terms and conditions. Starting with a preferred PPA will help bidders understand
how they can best align their products and pricing with the desired terms, and is
a relatively standard approach to procurement. While this is not a guarantee that
the ultimate terms will completely align with the template, it will serve as an
appropriate starting point for discussions.
A detailed RFP document should be prepared that includes such information as:
desired timelines for project delivery; detailed bid forms; the aforementioned
draft PPA template, as well as any other terms and conditions related to
communications; questions related to the RFP; the availability or possibility of
pre-bid meetings; and the desired path towards interviews with potential
proponents (if deemed necessary).
The RFP responses should then be reviewed for completeness and compliance.
Typically, minimum compliance standards related to the documentation
provided as requested in the RFP as well as the criteria for a complete and
credible bid may result in certain bids being deemed non-responsive. BELCO
can reserve the right to engage in follow-up questions with bidders as part of the
evaluation process. In parallel, the RFP responses can be reviewed based on
evaluation criteria (which are likely to extend beyond mere pricing
considerations and should carefully evaluate bidder credibility and ability to
deliver on promised outcomes based on a holistic evaluation). The evaluation
criteria may or may not be specified to bidders as part of the RFP submittal.
As with the battery procurement, a general timeline for the procurement process is
estimated to be six months, with the actual contract negotiation and execution phase
taking an additional 12 months. It should be noted that the sum total time beyond the
contract execution phase would likely involve the construction of new PV capacity
within Bermuda to support the PPA, the duration of which would impact the timing
associated with actual availability of output from the project supporting the PPA.
_
Section 4
IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS
4.1 Introduction
This Section presents a summary of the key assumptions, in the form of a standalone
IRP technical assumptions document (the Assumptions Document), that are used in
developing the IRP. The purpose of the Assumptions Document is to provide sufficient
detail on the data sources and analytical approach to each aspect of the 2016 IRP that
must be completed prior to the onset of detailed dispatch modeling. By codifying all of
the core inputs in advance of the detailed modeling, rework and resulting project delays
can be minimized. In addition, this document serves as a platform for additional
feedback from BELCO on any desired adjustments relative to each IRP aspect. Given
BELCOs desire to institutionalize the IRP process and periodically revisit the IRP in
the future, the Assumptions Document serves as a living document that can be updated
and refined in future planning cycles.
The appendices to this report are referenced throughout this section as appropriate
relative to the specific topics covered. These appendices should be reviewed carefully
to ensure full understanding of the technical, economic, and load related assumptions
underpinning the IRP.
4.2 IRP Study Period

The IRP analysis is conducted over the 20-year Study Period beginning January 1, 2017,
and ending December 31, 2036. While the Study Period is the focus of all projections
of load, fuel and resource costs, the IRPs levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and
dispatch analyses also utilize capital cost estimates for candidate resources that will help
BELCO with initial budgetary planning over the next 1 to 3 years as a lead-in to more
detailed feasibility studies in which BELCO may engage based on the IRP results.
4.3 Financial Factors

BELCO provided the following key financial factors for use in the cost analysis:
Inflation 2.25 percent.
Weighted Average Cost of Capital 9.75 percent.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital as provided by BELCO is predicated upon
achieving an optimal gearing ratio based on the existing regulatory structure in Bermuda
and is consistent with other international utility benchmarks. It should be noted that
discounted cash flow calculations across the IRP are predicated upon escalation of
nominal dollars over the course of the Study Period, and that production costs are
discounted back to todays dollars using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.

Section 4
The capital cost escalation assumption is developed from future capital costs escalation
rates included in recent construction contracts, forecasts and information from Global
Insight and Leidos experience in the industry. The escalation adder used for future
capital costs is equal to inflation for the duration of the Study Period.
4.4 Load Forecast

Leidos reviewed BELCOs updated net energy for load (NEL), which reflects total
generation inclusive of losses, and system peak demand data, generally over the period
2005 through 2015. We also reviewed the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic
Report, dated February 2016, as well as supplemental data provided by BELCO
regarding the trajectory of key industries within Bermuda and their estimated impact on
the recent contraction thru 2014 in real gross domestic product (GDP). Our review
comprised two parallel efforts, namely: (i) review of economic evidence and
intelligence to develop a perspective regarding the Load Forecast, including the
determination of assumptions related to uncertainty in the early portion of the Study
Period, and (ii) development of an updated econometric model of BELCOs historical
system energy using the GDP data provided in the 2015 Ministry of Finance report (to
supplement data previously obtained from IHS Global Insight), updated weather data
provided by BELCO, and other data provided by BELCO that was examined for its
ability to explain historical variation in load (as described further below).
Our review resulted in conclusions within each realm of analysis, which are discussed
below, as well as an updated long-term Load Forecast. The Load Forecast is predicated
upon a reasonable approach underpinned by an econometric analysis framework that
produced monthly econometric models for BELCOs NEL and system load factor, and
a short- to medium-term rubric for characterizing load uncertainty. The five sub-sections
below summarize: (i) the results of our weather normalization analysis, (ii) the results
of our review of economic data and intelligence, (iii) the development of and results
associated with the updated econometric model of BELCO NEL that determines the
GDP elasticity upon which the short- to medium-term forecast is based, (iv) our
methodology for developing the Load Forecast, which reflects a combination of a short-
to medium-term projection and assumptions regarding longer-term growth rates based
on feedback and interaction with the BELCO working group, and (v) the Load Forecast
results. Appendix A of this report provides a tabularized summary of the Load Forecast.
4.4.1 Weather Normalization Results

Weather normalization is a forecast variance decomposition technique that leverages
statistical estimates of the incremental impact of weather on energy and peak demand
to estimate what load levels would have been had normal weather prevailed. Normal
weather is typically estimated as a function of long-term average conditions or
homogenized normal data from weather banks or third-party providers. Separate
energy and load factor econometric models were developed for the BELCO system as
part of the IRP that contained weather normalization coefficients that were deployed to

weather normalize BELCO load. Weather data was compiled for the available period at
the time 6 of analysis, which was then used to determine normal conditions as follows:
For heating and cooling degree day determinants, the normal values were based on
long term averages of the hottest and coldest days in each month from the available
period of Weather Underground data; supplemental research was conducted by
Leidos on the National Climatic Data Center (the NCDC) daily airport data, but
such data was subject to significant amounts of missing days, or data points, that
rendered the data unusable for normalization purposes.
For peak demand, the econometric load factor model combined two additional
weather terms intended to capture the parabolic response to extreme temperatures on
the day during which each monthly BELCO peak occurred; peak timing information
(predicated on historical hourly loads provided by BELCO) was combined with
temperature data from Weather Underground to determine the temperatures during
peak days required to leverage the load factor model for weather normalization
purposes.
Figure 4-1 below illustrates the parabolic relationship between extreme temperatures
and BELCO peak demand data for a sampling of the historical data.
Temperature Response Parabola

System Peak Demand vs. Peak Day Max Temperature
125
120
System Peak Demand (MW)
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Peak Day Max Temp (dF)
Figure 4-1 Parabolic Temperature Response for BELCO Peak Demand
As evidenced by Figure 4-1 above, there are bands of temperature response wherein
cool or warm temperatures relative to a particular base (above which temperatures may
be perceived as extreme by end users) can drive incremental increases in peak demand
6
The Load Forecast weather uncertainty analysis was performed during March 2015.

Section 4
within each season. The cooling demand response and heating demand response
thresholds were 80 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for peak day maximum temperature and
58F for peak day minimum temperature, respectively. In order to estimate normal
conditions for such variables, the average of the 1981-2010 monthly maximum and
minimum temperatures (for the hottest/coldest days in each month) reported by Weather
Underground were used to develop threshold variables across that period, and were
combined with threshold variables for those same determinants during the periods
representing the BELCO peak, and then averaged. These normal conditions were then
compared to historical values to derive a weather-normalized load factor, which when
combined with weather normalized energy, was used to derive weather normalized peak
demand.
Figure 4-2 below summarizes historical cooling and heating degree days from the
Weather Underground data as compared to long term averages.
3,000
2,500
2,000
Degree Days
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
HDD CDD HDD_Norm CDD_Norm
Figure 4-2 Actual v. Normal Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Bermuda
Graphical review of weather as compared to normal conditions can generally provide

an indication of the direction and extent of weather impacts in a given year. As
evidenced by the figure above, it was anticipated that the net impact of weather
deviations from normal would be significant enough to warrant analysis, but not the
primary driver of load declines for either energy or peak demand given the magnitude
of actual changes in system load. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 below present historical and
weather normalized historical BELCO NEL and system peak demand, respectively.

760
740
720
700
GWh
680
660
640
620
600
Historical Weather Normalized
Figure 4-3 Historical and Weather Normalized System Energy (GWh)
130
125
120
115
MW
110
105
100
95
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Historical Weather Normalized
Figure 4-4 Historical and Weather Normalized System Peak Demand (MW)
As evidenced by Figures 4-3 and 4-4, the net impact of energy normalization on an
annual basis (which can fluctuate from month to month in either direction) ranges from
-1.5 percent to 1.3 percent over the historical period, and -1.5 percent for 2015.
Likewise, the system peak demand normalization impact ranges from -3.4 percent to

Section 4
0.4 percent over the historical period, and -1.4 percent for 2013. The weather-
normalization calculations for peak demand have not been extended beyond 2013,
primarily due to missing weather data.
The weather normalization analysis shows that while weather does have an impact on
BELCO load, the relative stability of temperatures within the territory results in fairly
bounded impacts that cannot explain the magnitude of load contractions in and of
themselves entirely.
4.4.2 Economic Data Review

Leidos reviewed the 2015 Ministry of Finance National Economic Report as well as
other material provided by BELCO regarding the status of various industries in
Bermuda and their contribution to the direction of real GDP, which is the core
econometric variable deployed for load forecasting in the BELCO forecasting
architecture. We also reviewed information provided by BELCO related to the recent
outlook accompanying the country credit ratings by Standard and Poors (S&P) and
Fitch rating agencies.
The economy in Bermuda was estimated to have suffered another year of contraction in
real GDP in the year 2014, with a decline of 0.4 percent (which reflects a level of
contraction that is in the range contemplated in the prior 2013 Ministry of Finance
Report). While official 2015 values are not yet available, the Ministry of Finance Report
estimates that real GDP may have turned a corner in 2015, increasing by 1.5 to 2.5
percent over 2014. However, as estimated GDP based on actual performance of the
economy is not yet available for 2015, it is likely premature to assign that level of growth
to 2015 until estimates are updated. Leidos relied upon the range of potential delta
specified in the Ministry of Finance Report for GDP for 2015 in order to construct the
updated econometric model of BELCO NEL as described further below.
Figure 4-5 below summarizes the annual percent change in real GDP per year over the
most recent several years of available data.

Summary of Recent Period Real GDP Deltas (% from Prior Year)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

(0.40)
(2.50) (2.40)
(3.90)
(4.40)
(5.90)
Figure 4-5 Summary of Year-over-Year Changes in Real GDP 7
The Ministry of Finance Report contains a discussion regarding the current state of the
Bermuda economy that provides a mixture of positive metrics and continued softness in
certain components of the economy, a sampling of which is as follows:
While some of the major economic indicators such as employment, air visitors
and construction activity declined in 2015, there were many encouraging results
regarding international business, employment income, retail sales and balance
of payments.
The number of jobs fell by 0.9 percent and the official unemployment rate was
calculated at 7.0 percent in 2015. This reflects an improvement from the rate in
2014 of 9.0 percent. 8
In the tourism sector, air visitors fell by 1.2 percent while cruise arrivals rose by
4.2 percent. Employment in hotels fell by 4.4 percent.
Employment income rose by 1.6 percent over the first three quarters of 2015 and
increased in all major sectors with the exception of Banking, Insurance & Real
Estate (down 0.4 percent) and Construction (down 11.9 percent). The gross
7
Source: 2015 Ministry of Finance Report
8
Leidos notes that a portion of this improvement may be due to discouraged workers who may have
stopped looking for new opportunities rather than an improvement in the underlying employment
situation.

Section 4
turnover generated by retail stores increased by 2.7 percent in 2015, while jobs
in the sector rose by 0.4 percent.
Over the first three quarters of 2015, the level of construction activity contracted
by 41.3 percent, with the value of work put in place falling from $97.9 million
in 2014 to $57.5 million in 2015. The value of new projects started rose by 19.3
percent. Jobs in this industry fell by 1.0 percent year-over-year.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by an estimated 1.5 percent for 2015.
This level of inflation was below the 2.0 percent recorded in 2014 and the 1.8
percent recorded in 2013.
The contraction of GDP in real terms of 0.4 per cent in 2014 was mainly caused
by sharp declines in the output of the financial intermediation sector ($32.6
million), a reduction in the education, health and social work sector ($23.5
million), and a reduction in the hotels and restaurant sector ($19.7 million).
These declines were offset by gains in the international business sector ($39.2
million) and the construction and quarrying sector ($8.5 million).
New Vehicle sales rose by 24 percent.
New residential dwelling unit completions declined by 44.9 percent.
Vacation arrivals from the United States and United Kingdom were up, with
Canadian arrivals decreasing, in part due to the recent weakness of the Canadian
dollar.
Overall, the island lost an estimated 7,024 jobs since 2008, a reduction of 17.5
percent.
The Ministry of Finance Report also provides a discussion regarding the near-term
outlook for the Bermuda economy, underpinned to some degree by an analysis of the
world economic outlook and a review of a series of forward-looking developments,
including the following highlights:
Bermuda Business Development Agency activity is anticipated to yield growth
in international companies setting up on-island (i.e., new companies in
insurance, asset management, shipping, and technology).
Improvements in international tourism, driven from improving economic
conditions and low oil prices; increased cruise ship activity; major hotel
developments on the island; and planned increases in airport capacity.
Given anticipated developments on the island and the global economic outlook, the
Ministry of Finance projects that real GDP on Bermuda will increase by 2.0 to 3.0
percent in 2016. For purposes of the forecast for 2016 BELCO system load discussed
herein, we have assumed the low end of that range.
Additionally, the indication from our review of recent rating agency information
provided by BELCO suggests modest levels of improvement in the overall economy.
As evidenced by our review above, the main challenges related to load forecasting for
Bermuda utilizing economic data are that: (i) little or no long-term projected economic

data currently exists that bears out a de-coupled relationship between mainland US
recovery and recovery in Bermuda, (ii) the assumption of no uncertainty in the short- to
medium-term underestimates the range of potential future loads, and (iii) it is important
to predicate the forecast on an empirically estimated (econometric) approach that
recognizes the limitations of simulation of such models into the future absent economic
data that can capture short-term fluctuations. Refer to the subsection below for a
description of Leidos approach to addressing these challenges when developing the
BELCO Load Forecast.
4.4.3 Updated Econometric Model of Bermuda NEL

Pursuant to the receipt of updated historical data from BELCO for both NEL and key
weather determinants, most notably heating degree days and cooling degree days 9, as
well as additional data pertaining to BELCOs recent fuel cost adjustments, Leidos
prepared an updated econometric model of BELCO NEL. The purpose of the updated
model was to (i) refresh an existing econometric framework previously prepared for
BELCO to determine the stability of historical relationships, most notably relative to
real GDP, and (ii) leverage the elasticity resulting from the model to support the short-
to medium-term load forecast, which was subsequently blended with the longer term
growth rates based on the process described further below.
The key variables included in the updated BELCO NEL model include the following:
BELCO Real GDP this series was backcast based on previously obtained
data from Global Insight, coupled with the updated 2009 2015 data from the
2015 Ministry of Finance Report
Heating and cooling degree days (using a base of 65 dF)
The number of days in the month
Seasonal, autoregressive, and binary variables (which address isolated
anomalies in the monthly data)
The updated models findings regarding GDP elasticity were very similar to prior
iterations of the same model, with an estimated elasticity of 0.64. This implies that a
10 percent change in real GDP would equate to an approximate 6.4 percent change in
load on the island. The NEL model has an adjusted R-squared of approximately 97.6
percent, which implies that 97.6 percent of the variation in historical NEL can be
explained with the variables included in the equation.
It should be noted that the time series data provided by BELCO related to the fuel cost
adjustment was not found to be of sufficient length to be significant as a variable in the
model. To the extent the reduction in the recent fuel cost adjustment persists for some
extended period of time, future modeling efforts may uncover a material relationship.
This relationship would be evidenced by a recovery of load, above what would be
expected to result from the economic recovery, associated with end-user response to
9
Heating and cooling degree days are calculated based on the difference between daily temperatures
and a reference temperature, typically 65 degrees Fahrenheit (dF), and are utilized to capture month-
to-month variability in energy due to weather conditions driven from heating and cooling related load
response.

Section 4
reduced electricity costs. Refer to the subsection below for further details regarding how
the GDP elasticity resulting from the updated model was deployed to develop the final
Load Forecast, which is also summarized in Appendix A.
4.4.4 Load Forecast Methodology

Recognizing the limitations associated with the lack of long-term perspectives and data
regarding the trajectory of real GDP, Leidos devised a load forecast methodology that
balances what we currently know with a more expansive treatment of uncertainty over
the forecast horizon. This heuristic approach remains underpinned by econometrically
estimated parameters that relate economic variations to load levels. Furthermore, an
effort was made to retain consistency in the long-term growth rates of the forecast as
codified through interaction with BELCO, while developing a band of uncertainty over
the forecast period.
The approach to the 2016 load forecast was as follows:
1. The energy forecast has been anchored to the 2015 value, on a weather-
normalized basis, with adjustments in succeeding years based on the methods
discussed below. In all years and all cases, the peak demand forecast is derived
from the energy forecast based on an assumed load factor derived from an
average of recent historical values (2005-2015), or 69.2 percent.
2. The econometrically estimated elasticity of real GDP for system energy from
the updated BELCO NEL econometric model, which is approximately 0.64, was
used to characterize the estimated impact on energy based on an assumed Year
1 (or 2016) change in real GDP (as depicted in Step 3 below).
3. The Year 1 (or 2016) change in real GDP was set to 2.0 percent (which is the
low end of the anticipated range of growth for 2016 presented in the Ministry of
Finance 2015 National Economic Report).
4. This delta value was combined with the econometrically-derived real GDP
elasticity in order to estimate energy impacts, resulting in growth in load for
2016 of 1.3 percent, from the weather-normalized value. 10 As the weather-
normalization impact for 2015 was a reduction of 1.5 percent, the forecasted
2016 energy reflects a decline of 0.2 percent from 2015 actual values. Growth
in succeeding years through 2018 was assumed to be half of the preceding year,
resulting in load growth rates of 0.6 percent and 0.3 percent in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.
5. The load values resulting above are further adjusted, beginning 2018, by
assumed reductions resulting from the implementation of the Bermuda
Governments light emitting diode (LED) street-lighting program, consistent
10
Weather-normalization is a process to develop an estimate of the impact on historical loads of weather
conditions and to estimate what load levels would have been had weather been normal. This process has
been applied to BELCOs historical energy and peak demands utilizing parameters taken from the
econometric analysis that underpins the near-term forecast. Normal heating and cooling degree days were
based on an average of such values over 2000-2013 (for consistency with prior results). Normal values
for peak demand were based on averages of peak day conditions over 1981-2010.

with a gradual and prolonged economic recovery and the long-term forecast
methodology described further below.
Development of Forecast Scenarios

The Base Case forecast developed as described above reflects the combination of a
simplified economic forecast, relying to some degree on the 2015 National Economic
Report and an econometric analysis of BELCO NEL. Econometric analysis is a superior
approach to trend-based forecasts, as it results in an explanation of history using
multivariate statistical analysis, as opposed to an extrapolation of trends. However, it
is recognized that the underlying projection of economic activity is subject to
considerable uncertainty.
Accordingly, in addition to the Base Case, High and Low Case load forecasts were
developed based on Leidos review and application of historical economic forecast
errors published by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. These statistics describe the
errors in Woods and Poole forecasts published over 1984-2014 and have been
interpreted to capture an 80 percent confidence interval of the potential range of future
economic activity on Bermuda as applied to the Base Case economic forecast.
4.4.5 Forecast Results

The finalized forecast reflects a combination of leveraging the results of the econometric
process and feedback from BELCO staff.
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 depict historical and projected BELCO NEL, with the latter chart
reflecting a narrow Y-axis so that year-over-year variations are more visible. Note that
the projection assumes an impact associated with the Bermuda Governments ongoing
LED street-lighting 11 replacement starting in the year 2018, based on energy differential
estimates relative to baseline street lights as estimated by BELCO. Figure 4-7 clearly
depicts the impact of warmer weather during 2015, the anticipated growth for 2016
relative to both the actual and weather-normalized 2015 values, and the impact of the
LED street lighting replacement beginning 2018.
11
Street lights have been assumed to have zero coincidence with BELCO system peak, and consequently,
there is no peak demand reduction associated with the LED street-lighting program.

Section 4
Figure 4-6 Energy Forecast
Figure 4-7 Energy Forecast (Narrow Y-axis)
Figure 4-8 summarizes the updated historical and projected BELCO system peak
demand (note the narrow Y-axis, similar to Figure 4-7 above). Note that the LED street-
lighting replacement is assumed to have no impact on the system peak, as the system

peak is assumed to be during daylight hours. The weather-normalization analysis has

not been updated for 2014 and 2015 data at this time, but this does not have an impact
on the results, as the peak demand has been derived based on the projected NEL and an
assumed load factor.
Figure 4-8 Peak Demand Forecast (MW)
The forecast results shown above can be thought of as the organic forecast prior to
the incorporation of estimated impacts of any demand-side management options
deployed in a given resource expansion case. Each demand-side resources estimated
energy and peak demand impact, as applicable, will be represented as a reduction to the
organic load forecast within the confines of a given generation expansion case.
It is critical to note that the variations in BELCOs load forecast are secondary to
BELCOs aging generation asset infrastructure, which is the primary driver of future
capacity and energy requirements. Regardless of the variance in future load
stemming from growth uncertainty, capacity and energy requirements are projected
to be significant given BELCOs current retirement schedule for their existing assets.
Appendix A contains tabularized load forecast results assuming the Base Case over the
Study Period.
4.5 Reserve Margin Planning Criteria

BELCOs total installed power generation capacity requirement is established on the
basis of maintaining the ability to meet the annual peak system load without contribution
from the three largest capacity generating units on the system and without serving the
system load component that is served by capacity from the Tynes Bay waste-to-energy
facility (i.e., Tynes Bay capacity can be thought of as a credit to the reserve margin

Section 4
requirement). The application of this criteria results in a planning reserve margin that
is calculated by the formula:
RM = 3C TB
Where:
RM is the system planning capacity reserve margin (MW)
3C is the total capacity of the three largest generating units on the system (MW)
TB is the rated output capacity of the Tynes Bay facility (MW)
The capacity of the three largest units is used in the formula to simulate a situation where
the largest unit is out of service for planned maintenance, the second largest unit is out
of service on a forced outage and the third largest unit is being operated to meet the
system spinning reserve requirement. BELCOs current operation protocol requires
sufficient spinning reserve to facilitate the instantaneous loss of the largest generating
unit with no resulting loss of load due to under frequency tripping of feeder circuits. For
the purpose of the formula, the Tynes Bay facility is regarded as a firm capacity
resource.
Based on the existing BELCO resource portfolio, the 2016 planning reserve margin is
established as follows:
RM = 3 X 14.3 4.5 = 38.4 MW
During the production cost analysis, the dispatch to load model calculates the annual
capacity reserve margin based on (i) the existing resources on the BELCO system,
reflective of retirements, capacity adjustments as a result of alternate fuel operation and
the expansion of Tynes Bay to an export capability of 4.5 MW in 2016, (ii) the size and
nature of resource options that are added and (iii) the projected system peak demand.
The capacity reserve margin as a percentage of the total installed capacity fluctuates
based on the value of the total installed capacity.
4.6 Existing Generating Resources

Leidos provided BELCO with a spreadsheet template to house all critical downstream
modeling assumptions for each of BELCOs existing generating resources. As part of
that data transmittal, operating data on generation by resource during the recent period
was provided, which helped Leidos to understand capacity factors for existing resources
as a benchmark to capacity factors for candidate resources in terms of the LCOE and
dispatch analyses. Appendix B, appended herein, summarizes all cost, operational, and
performance characteristics for BELCOs existing resources.
BELCO provided a detailed response to Leidos data request, and Leidos reviewed the
data inputs provided by BELCO for sensibility. Assumptions related to fuel conversion
of existing resources and associated parameters (for assets that are scheduled to
transition to natural gas or other alternative fuel if and when such infrastructure becomes
available) were developed in partnership with BELCO and are modeled as options in
the dispatch cases.

Data on the timing of the alternate fuel conversion (to be based on the definition of the
applicable expansion scenario), the capital and O&M cost of conversion (gathered via
manufacturer data and Leidos project database), and the associated changes in
performance characteristics resulting from the conversion (e.g., heat rate) are compiled
in the Supply Side Candidate Resources section of Appendix B. In addition, in the
absence of actual data, Leidos based estimates for the emission rates of the existing fleet
on MAN 48/60B guarantees for the existing diesel units and on Solar Turbines Inc.
(Solar) new and clean emission rates for the existing gas turbine (GT) units (also
referred to herein as combustion turbines, or CTs).
BELCO reports that there is no outstanding debt on existing generating resources 12.
Debt service for supply side (either new or converted) and demand side candidate
resources are estimated based on the options defined and the estimated cost of capital.
Refer to Appendix B for estimates of debt service per year for candidate resources,
which are described further below. Figure 4-9 below summarizes BELCOs base load
forecast (with and without reserves) versus BELCOs existing power supply resources,
reflecting projected retirement dates, including Tynes Bay and its expansion (which is
assumed to impact reserve requirements as defined above). The retirements are
assumed to occur after the summer peak season of the year stated in the text boxes within
the graph. Table 4-1 summarizes BELCOs estimated capacity gaps, using the base
case load forecast with reserves as a basis. It should be noted that the graphic and the
table which follow below are reflective of a reserve margin which ranges from 41.4 MW
to 29.1 MW based on the formulaic approach as described above with no addition of
new generation resources, while the dispatch-to-load model establishes the reserve
margin inclusive of resource additions.
12
BELCO has provided depreciation schedules for assets in support of incorporating the full impact of
potential early retirement of certain resources, which has been captured in a given production cost case if
applicable. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of depreciation schedules provided.

Section 4
BELCO 2016 IRP

Existing Available Capacity vs. Projected BELCO Load
200
Tynes Bay increases
180 beginning of 2017 and Units
E1 and E2 Retire end of 2018
Base Forecast with Reserves
160
140
Base Forecast without Reserves
120
MW
100
80
D15, GT3E and Units E3, E4 and
GT3F Retire end of GT4 Retire end of
60
2015; GT4 Retires 2019; Unit D14 Unit GT5
end of 2016; Units Retires end of Retires end
40 D3, D8, D10, of 2025
2020 Units E5 and
Retire end of
E6 Retire end
20 2018
of 2030
0
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Figure 4-9 Capacity vs. Load
Table 4-1
Capacity Gap Analysis
(Base Load Forecast with Reserves)
Year Capacity Gap Year Capacity Gap

(MW) (MW)
2016 14.3 2026 (76.9)
2017 7.6 2027 (77.2)
2018 (16.1) 2028 (77.6)
2019 (37.5) 2029 (77.9)
2020 (57.4) 2030 (78.3)
2021 (62.2) 2031 (97.4)
2022 (62.6) 2032 (97.8)
2023 (62.9) 2033 (98.1)
2024 (63.2) 2034 (98.4)
2025 (63.6) 2035 (98.8)

4.7 Power Supply Options

The following list summarizes the resources being considered by BELCO, organized by
supply-side and demand-side candidate resource options.
4.7.1 Supply-Side Options

The following is a discussion of the development of the key parameters for the supply-
side options considered for this evaluation. Note that Appendix F of this report contains
additional discussion surrounding other resource options that were deemed infeasible
based on certain criteria as a supplement to this section.
Leidos assumed that any new No. 2 oil-fired resources will be supplied with fuel from
existing oil storage facilities at the Central Plant. Based on the conceptual LNG
regasification facility and natural gas delivery pipeline design, it is anticipated that gas
compressors will not be required for the CT options.
Due to the scarcity of fresh water on Bermuda, Leidos assumed an air-cooled condenser
system in place of a traditional condenser and wet cooling tower configuration for all
combined cycle (CC) resource options.
The CT and CC generating unit performance characteristics were developed based on
the average mean temperatures observed in Bermuda of approximately 72 degrees
Fahrenheit.
The construction cost estimates are based on the assumption that no land costs or other
site infrastructure improvements such as fire/water supply lines or significant site
remediation requirements are necessary. Leidos included an allowance of $100,000 for
interconnection costs on the Simple-Cycle (SC) CTs and $200,000 for the CC CTs.
The construction cost estimates were developed on an EPC contract basis. The accuracy
range of these estimates is + 30/-15 percent.
Simple-Cycle MSD - HFO, Regasified LNG
With concurrence by BELCO, Leidos used the quote from the winning proposal
that was submitted in response to a request for proposals for the proposed oil-
fired North Station Extension project in 2011 as a basis for developing an updated
capital cost estimate for the medium speed diesel oil-fired resource option. The
proposals were based on the EPC scope of work for a power plant comprising
three 14 MW nominal capacity medium speed diesel generators designed to burn
heavy fuel oil (HFO). Based on information from the bidder, the quote was
adjusted upward by a factor of ten percent as an estimate of the cost impact of
reducing the number of units from three to one. The quote included both US
currency (USD) and European currency (Euro) cost estimate components.
The Euro portion of the quote was adjusted for inflation, as measured/estimated
for the Euro-zone, over the five year period since 2011 and the shift in the
exchange rate between the USD and the Euro from the date of the quote. The
USD portion was adjusted to reflect the impact of inflation as measured/estimated
for the US over the same five year period. The inflation adjustment with respect
to the USD is based on the US Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers,
while the inflation adjustment with respect to the Euro is based on the

Section 4
Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices for resident and non-resident households

in the economic territory of the Euro. The USD to Euro exchange rate for the
purpose of converting Euros to USD is used to establish a current USD cost
estimate, and is based on the Bloomberg April 27, 2016 reported rate.
The cost estimate for a nominal 13.7 MW capacity dual fuel (oil/natural gas,
DF) fired medium speed reciprocating engine generating unit was developed
based on information from the same contractor whose quote was used as a basis
for the cost estimate for the oil fired units. The contractor estimated that, on a
USD per kilowatt basis, the installed cost of an equivalent sized DF power plant
project would amount to approximately 110 percent of the cost of the quote
provided for the oil-fired project above, after accounting for the reduced capacity
output. Leidos applied this relationship in developing the cost estimate for the
DF medium speed reciprocating engine candidate resource.
As an option in the proposal for the North Power Plant Extension Project, the
winning proposal included a firm quote for the conversion of BELCOs existing
oil-fired medium speed reciprocating generating units E5, E6, E7 and E8 to DF
(oil/natural gas) capability. Leidos used this quote along with similar inflation
and exchange rate adjustments to those described above to develop current capital
cost estimates in USD per kilowatt for the conversion.
Capital cost estimates and performance parameters for the new candidate gas
powered reciprocating engine generators designed for natural gas-only operation
are based on indicative pricing and data provided by an original equipment
manufacturer. This candidate resource is to be modeled as a set of four units
installed together.
Heat rates and capacities for the medium speed diesel (MSD) and reciprocating
gas engine generating units were developed based on data provided by the
original equipment manufacturers. Leidos did not apply any allowance for
guarantees or off-design performance.
Non-fuel O&M costs for the HFO-fired option were developed based on recent
actual operating cost data provided by BELCO for its MAN 48/60 generating
units. Although it would be expected that the DF engines would have lower
overall O&M costs, based on discussions with the EPC contractor, Leidos
assumed the same non-fuel O&M costs for the DF MSD generating units.
Simple-Cycle and Combined Cycle CT LFO and Regasified LPG/LNG
In conjunction with on-going work with BELCO regarding assessment of the
feasibility of installing LNG infrastructure on-island, Leidos worked with a
vendor to develop a capital cost estimate for a nominal 14.5 MW simple cycle
CT. Leidos based the capital cost estimate for a CT on the vendor provided quote
for the combined cycle combustion turbine through adjustments to the equipment
components included, as well as overall direct and indirect project cost estimates.
In particular, the steam generating equipment, steam turbine and generator set and
condensing equipment were excluded from the estimate in order to derive the CT
cost estimates. Leidos used this adjusted quote, adjusted for inflation as discussed

above under the MSD section, to develop current capital cost estimates in USD
per kilowatt.
The same vendor provided information regarding a nominal 18.0 MW CC electric
generator. The vendor provided an estimate for a single combustion turbine
paired with steam generating equipment and a single steam turbine (a 1x1
configuration) CC electric generator dated August 2014. The 1x1 CC estimate
provided by the vendor was provided for locating the unit at an existing site and
included: (i) Bermuda specific pricing for equipment delivery and construction;
(ii) balance of plant (BOP) costs; (iii) direct and indirect construction costs;
(iv) project management and engineering costs; and (v) wet-cooling and steam
condensing through a cooling tower. Leidos reviewed the quote and relied
primarily upon the equipment costs, making adjustments to the construction and
indirect costs based on Leidos own experience. In addition, Leidos revised the
assumption for cooling to reflect a dry-cooling system using an air-cooled
condenser, which increased the cost of the original quote. Leidos used this
adjusted quote, adjusted for inflation, to develop current capital cost estimates in
USD per kilowatt.
The capital costs and performance characteristics assumptions for the LPG
CT/CC resource options were based upon prior work performed by Leidos in
support of BELCO during 2013. The capital costs and O&M costs were escalated
from 2013 real dollars to 2016 real dollars using the US Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers as discussed above under the MSD section.
The capacity and heat rate for the CT and CC were developed based on
information provided by the vendor to Leidos.
Non fuel O&M costs for the CT and CC were developed based on discussions
with the vendor.
Biomass
The parameters for the generic biomass fluidized bed boiler with steam turbine
generator were derived based on information provided by BELCO. The design
proposed included three 18 MW units for a total of 54 MW.
The capital costs were estimated for delivery to and installation in Bermuda. The
estimated capital cost for a 54 MW biomass fluidized bed boiler with steam
turbine generator is estimated to be approximately $264.6 million (2016 $).
The estimated fixed O&M annual cost is estimated to be approximately
$11,900,000 per year (2016 $).
The estimated variable O&M annual cost is estimated to be approximately
$4.25/MWh.
The heat rate of 15,000 Btu/kWh is estimated based on typical ranges of heat rates
for a biomass steam boiler which ranges from 14,000 Btu/kWh to 16,000
Btu/kWh.
The capacity factor based on information provided by BELCO is estimated to be
89 percent.

Section 4
The fuel cost of the feedstock is estimated at $12 per mmBtu. This costs is
assumed to be reflective of a feedstock source from the east coast of the U.S. and
all taxes and duties for delivery to BELCO.
The biomass resource is only evaluated in the LCOE model.
Utility-Scale Solar
The parameters for the utility scale solar installation were derived based on
information provided by BELCO. The AC capacity of the generic utility scale
options was developed based on information supplied by BELCO and Leidos
own expertise and experience.
BELCO provided updated capital cost information regarding utility-scale solar
PV resources at an estimated cost of $3.20 per watt.
In order to maintain a range of generic PV resource options for IRP modeling
purposes, resource options at the 5 MW and 20 MW-AC level are parameterized
as resource options for the IRP.
The O&M costs for the utility scale solar option are composed of fixed costs only
and were developed based on information provided by BELCO for distributed
commercial installations. In addition, Leidos included the future cost of inverter
replacement in the fixed O&M.
Offshore Wind
Cost and performance data for the off-shore wind energy resource option were
derived from the 2014 report titled Offshore Wind Energy in the Context of
Multiple Ocean Uses on the Bermuda Platform by the Bren School of
Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa
Barbara (the UCSB Report). The UCSB Report was prepared for the
Government of Bermuda and provided to Leidos for use in the IRP exercise. The
objectives of the UCSB Report were as follows:
Determine economic viability of off-shore wind energy with respect to
Bermudas current energy context.
Identify and characterize potential conflicts with ocean uses and ecological
features.
Develop a spatial analysis model to identify potential locations for off-shore
wind farms with acceptable risk of impacts.
The report indicated a range of capital costs from $2,500/kW to $6,500/kW and,
for purposes of the analysis performed in the UCSB Report, a capital cost of
$5,600/kW was relied upon. This is comparable to the cost estimate of
$4,000/kW developed independently by Leidos, when considering the fact that
the Leidos estimate does not include interconnection and/or network upgrades.
The report also indicated a reasonable operations and maintenance annual
expense of approximately $40/MWh. This is essentially identical to the Leidos
estimate of approximately $41/MWh.

4.7.2 Demand-Side Options

Residential Solar Water Heating
Hourly profiling for the solar thermal water heater system was developed based
on weather data purchased from Weather Analytics, LLC, which provided TMY
2 (or 15-year based normalized hourly weather) for Bermuda. This data was
coupled with two models to produce an hourly profile of energy draw (negative)
or avoided grid energy (positive), the net of which resulted in annual energy for
the incremental installation. Demand impacts were estimated based on an analysis
of estimated hourly grid avoided demand during the hour of the BELCO system
peak.
The modeling for the hourly profile was a function of the combination of two
separate tools as follows:
The first tool is the SAM, as developed by NREL through a relationship with
the DOE.
The second tool is called RET-Screen. This is also a publically available tool
developed by Natural Resources Canada that contains built-in equipment
specifications, including make/model numbers.
Various combinations of solar thermal paired with solar PV were designed, and
ultimately, a solar thermal pairing with 1,060 watt (DC) PV panels was selected
as the demand side resource candidate. Hourly energy modeling has been
conducted as discussed above to reflect the estimated annual energy that can be
expected from the updated PV panel rating.
The capital cost of a solar thermal water heater system paired with a 1,060 watt
PV panel, which is the sole option retained for IRP modeling purposes, was
estimated by BELCO to be $9,000 per unit, inclusive of costs associated with
monitoring potential pilot deployments.
Leidos has assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty for the
mechanical equipment, and modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters. Leidos
estimated the overall fixed O&M cost to be around $1,000 over the life of the
installation; and those costs are subject to significant uncertainty, and could be as
much as two or three times the base estimate. In addition, Leidos accounted for
cost contingency associated with mainland versus BELCO cost.
Refer to Appendix B for a complete set of assumptions related to the Solar
Thermal water heater system. The peak demand and energy impact of this system
will be netted out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-
side resources, and the cost will be added to the dispatch analysis as a discrete
cost. Uptake of the program is based on information provided by BELCO.
Small-Scale Solar PV Panels Schools
Capacity, capital costs, and fixed O&M costs for PV installations of a distributed
nature for commercial installs were developed based on information provided by
BELCO. Leidos has assumed the use of micro-inverters and a 25-year warranty
for the modules, inclusive of the micro-inverters.

Section 4
Analysis of annual energy and coincidence of solar output with the BELCO
system peak were developed based on (i) Leidos parameterization and
deployment of the NREL solar profile tool using a nearby mainland weather area,
(ii) Leidos review of the Castle Harbour feasibility study conducted for BELCO,
and (ii) an analysis of the coincidence of the hourly solar output relative to the
BELCO system peak. As a result of the Castle Harbor studys use of Bermuda-
specific weather data, Leidos used that study as the basis for the assumption
related to coincidence of solar output to the BELCO system peak as well as for
annual energy. Table 4-2 summarizes the most important solar PV assumptions
on an incremental basis, the performance aspects of which also apply to utility-
scale solar.
Table 4-2
Key Solar PV Assumptions
Assumption Residential PV Commercial PV
Rating of Installation (kW-DC) 2.00 100.00

Capital Cost ($/kW-DC) 4,380 4,000
AC Rating of Installation (kW-AC) (1) 1.72 86.00
Capital Cost ($/kW-AC) 5,093 4,651
Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-AC-yr) 36.40 20.22
Annual Degradation Factor (%) 0.8% 0.8%
Dependable Capacity @ BELCO Peak 60% 60%
(1) Assumes a DC-AC ratio of approximately 1.16 based on The Castle Harbour Solar Project report.
The peak demand and energy impact of all projected PV installs will be netted
out from the BELCO load forecast prior to dispatch against supply-side resources,
and the cost will be added to the dispatch analysis as a discrete cost. Uptake of
the program on a by-sector basis is based on information provided by BELCO.
Battery Storage
Leidos evaluated battery technology for application as spinning reserve backup
and as system stabilization support for intermittent supply side resources such as
solar and wind. The technology evaluated for the spinning reserve back up
application and the system stabilization application was a lithium-ion battery type
resource.
The capital cost for both battery resource types was derived based on information
from Leidos database of reference projects in conjunction with information
obtained from a major U.S. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).
The battery resource option does not have a heat rate.

The capacity rating of the spinning reserve backup battery resource was selected
to be capable of providing 12 MW for a duration of 15 minutes and was assumed
to have an annual operation of 60 full cycles per year at an average of five cycles
per month, each cycle consisting of a charge and discharge. This assumes a
generator trip five times per month each of which will require operation of the
battery. Further, the sizing of this battery option allows for provision of ancillary
services such as frequency regulation.
The capacity rating of the system stabilization battery resource was selected to be
capable of providing 5 MW for a duration of 60 minutes paired with the 20 MW
utility scale solar PV. The size of the battery system paired with the 5 MW utility
scale solar PV resource is sized to be capable of provided 1.5 MW for a duration
of 60 minutes. For support of the offshore wind resource, the 5 MW for a
duration of 60 minutes battery package is modeled.
The O&M costs for the battery resource options were composed of fixed costs
only and were based on information from Leidos database of reference projects.
Small Scale Cogeneration
The small scale cogeneration resource was assumed to be located at a major
commercial customers site, such as a hotel. The projection of electric load
requirements of a large hotel were developed by Leidos based on information
provided by BELCO. The thermal load requirements were developed by Leidos
based on commercially available information and typical industry data.
In developing the BELCO Power Supply Plan, the model will dispatch to BELCO
load inclusive of the reserve requirement (based on the criterion above) and select
the portfolio of supply-side resources that meets the capacity and energy needs of
BELCO with the lowest NPV of power supply cost over the Study Period. Must-
run resources or other unique dispatch constraints, as well as planned
maintenance of each resource will be considered in the analysis. As noted above,
it is Leidos intention to net out the estimated impact of any future DSM programs
from the BELCO load forecast prior to performing the supply-side evaluation.
Distributed Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP)
This option selected to provide enough electric generation to meet the customer
minimum load as well as provide thermal energy in support of cooling loads,
heating loads and domestic hot water consumption using a micro turbine
generator.
The micro turbine was assumed to operate on bulk LPG when LPG becomes
available on the island.
The construction cost estimate for the CCHP was developed based on information
obtained from a vendor in conjunction with Leidos database of reference projects
and excluded the use of gas compressors.
The capacity and heat rate were derived from information obtained from a vendor.
The O&M costs for the CCHP option is composed of variable costs only and was
developed based on information from Leidos database of reference projects.

Section 4
Distributed Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

This option has been based on sizing a reciprocating engine to meet the electrical
load of a generic customer. Heat recovery equipment was selected to optimize the
thermal waste energy of the exhaust of the reciprocating engine for use as energy
to serve space heating and domestic hot water needs of a generic customer.
The reciprocating engine was assumed to operate on bulk LNG when LNG
becomes available on the island.
The construction cost estimate for the CHP was developed based on information
received from discussions with a vendor.
The capacity and heat rate were derived from discussions with a vendor.
The O&M costs for the CHP option is composed of variable costs only and was
developed based on information from commercially available tools used for
approximating generator costs.
4.7.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) Portfolio Definition

In addition to the solar thermal and PV pairing above, Leidos will consider a generic
DSM option (comprised of an as yet undefined bundle of energy efficiency measures)
that is commensurate with incremental DSM abatement (or reduction in both peak
demand and energy) of 0.5 percent per year over the Study Period. As the exact nature
and extent of the programs associated with BELCOs downstream DSM portfolio
cannot be known until a DSM program is funded and audits can be conducted at
strategic locations in order to assess technical potential for a range of programs, it is
necessary to develop a planning-level estimate of the costs to design, deploy, and
manage a generic DSM portfolio that can achieve the incremental impacts desired to be
evaluated as part of the IRP. It should be noted that the specific programs in a given
bundle will ultimately drive cost, and that there is a large variation in cost as a function
of the stage at which a program is currently operating; as the low hanging fruit
measures are gradually adopted, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult for the
utility to endorse additionally successful measures that are cost effective. Consequently,
the cost curve for energy efficiency (which is the key component of DSM contemplated
herein) programs as a bundle is initially less expensive and gradually escalates to a much
higher cost, particularly assuming incremental achievement in the range of 0.5 percent
to 1.0 percent per year, or as much as 10 percent to 20 percent of current peak demand
ranges over 20 years (note: 0.5 percent incremental achievement is assumed herein).
Leidos has conducted a targeted meta-analysis of existing literature regarding DSM
costs. The existing literature reflects a vast range of reported costs across programs as a
function of the various stages of program development for best-in-class programs as
compared to programs that are in earlier stages of maturity, as well as due to the
challenges related to apples to apples data sources and reporting. Leidos has focused
on more recent sources in our review, generally avoiding literature produced prior to
2012. In addition to sources internal to projects with which Leidos is familiar, the recent
sources for cost information were as follows:

A May 2014 Report produced by Long Island Power that summarized recent
Efficiency Long Island program costs.
An April 2013 report by the National Resources Defense Council, which reported
statistics regarding cost per MWh saved in the state of Michigan for two utilities as
compared to leading states (NSTAR in Massachusetts and the Efficiency Vermont
program).
A February 2013 report by the Public Service of Vermont that provided longitudinal
data on program costs over the period 2002-2011.
A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory that meta-
analyses the cost of saved energy across the residential, commercial, and low income
retail classes across U.S. states.
A March 2015 report by the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
on the average cost reported by public utility programs in the state over the
2013/2014 fiscal year.
Two separate studies conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy in Texas and in Colorado on specific utility bundles of programs.
Based on this collective research, which includes program costs associated with other
Leidos projects, we have estimated an all-in cost in $/MWh for the generic EE block.
Table 4-3 represents planning-level annual costs of a generic bundle at incremental
achievements of .5 percent and 1 percent per year up to a maximum of 10 percent. As
noted above, we have structured the cost estimate such that incremental achievements
in DSM uptake become gradually more expensive as the Study Period progresses given
that the utility is anticipated to pursue lower-hanging fruit measures up front and work
to expand the DSM program over time. The estimated DSM costs reflect a long-range
view of the cost of measures wherein costs are shown as amortized over an assumed
average measure useful life of 7 years. It is critical to note that these costs are not
associated with any given measure and that lives of specific measures will vary once
the portfolio is actually defined. The main intent of the values shown is to indicate
that DSM measures have longitudinal benefits that accrue over the life of the
measure, and consequently, one view of implied costs could be based on spreading
the cost to implement a given measure over that measures useful life. Such
considerations will be made when evaluating DSM in a holistic fashion with the
context of a given scenario.

Section 4
Table 4-3
Summary of Estimated Generic EE Block Cost ($/MWh)
Total Achievement
@0.5% Per Year for 20 Equivalent Level Total Achievement Equivalent Level
Year Years Cost ($/MWh) @1.0% for 10 Years Cost ($/MWh)
1 0.5% 40.18 1.0% 47.95
2 1.0% 47.95 2.0% 58.54
3 1.5% 49.05 3.0% 71.46
4 2.0% 58.54 4.0% 84.47
5 2.5% 59.88 5.0% 98.84
6 3.0% 71.46 6.0% 114.93
7 3.5% 73.11 7.0% 133.07
8 4.0% 84.47 8.0% 153.63
9 4.5% 86.42 9.0% 176.96
10 5.0% 98.84 10.0% 203.48
11 5.5% 101.11 10.0% 209.58
12 6.0% 114.93 10.0% 215.87
13 6.5% 117.57 10.0% 222.35
14 7.0% 133.07 10.0% 229.02
15 7.5% 136.13 10.0% 235.89
16 8.0% 153.63 10.0% 242.96
17 8.5% 157.17 10.0% 250.25
18 9.0% 176.96 10.0% 257.76
19 9.5% 181.03 10.0% 265.49
20 10.0% 203.48 10.0% 273.46
4.7.4 Basis of Unit Operating Performance

Leidos provided net unit performance estimates (or net plant for the combined cycle
options) for each option based on an assumed parasitic load for each unit. The basis of
each net heat rate estimate reflects the HHV as opposed to the lower heating value
(LHV) basis. The difference between LHV and HHV is a function of the hydrogen
content of the fuel and can be thought of as the usable energy versus the chemical energy
in a fuel. When combusted, the chemical energy is released in the form of heat, with a
portion of the heat in an unusable form for current technology when hydrogen combines
with oxygen to form water vapor. If the water vapor is cooled below the saturation
point, the energy in the water vapor is released. Currently, engines are not mechanically
capable of extracting the remaining energy from the water vapor, and many engine
manufacturers state that the maximum energy that is available for the engine is the LHV.
Therefore, they prefer to state the performance on an LHV basis, which results in a
calculated efficiency that appears to be higher than the efficiency calculated on an HHV

basis. Typically, gaseous fuels are purchased on a higher heating value basis, thus
Leidos has provided the generating unit performance estimates on a HHV basis.
Leidos assumed 1.06 as the conversion from LHV to HHV for fuel oils and 1.11 for
natural gas. This estimates that approximately 6 percent of the chemical energy in fuel
oil combustion products and 11 percent of the chemical energy in natural gas
combustion products is water vapor.
4.8 Projections and Detailed Fuel Model Development

Leidos engaged in the development of a detailed fuel delivery forecast model for each
of the main candidate fuels in the IRP. The purpose of this detailed fuel model was to
expand and enhance the transparency of the fuel forecast and compartmentalize the
components of the build-out, so as to allow BELCO a platform for review and in-depth
itemization of the aspects of the pricing. Appendix C of this report contains the most
recent vintage of the by-year fuel forecast for all key fuels, including the adjustment to
fuel adder costs based on feedback from BELCO. On a broad basis, the following list
describes the key steps involved in the development of delivered fuel price projections
as are anticipated to be input into the downstream IRP production cost simulations (note:
all line items comprising the detailed fuel projection can be found in Appendix C of this
report):
Leidos estimated the HFO, LFO, LPG ISO, LPG Bulk 13, Bulk LNG ISO 14, LNG
ISO 15 and LNG Bulk commodity pricing to be commensurate with the updated AEO
from the EIA for those fuels; perspectives in the AEO have been combined with
recent period forward markets information as extracted from NYMEX commodity
projection for near-term strips to better capture a blend between short-term price
fluctuations and long term price level expectations. This was of particular importance
for oil given recent price fluctuations for this commodity. In addition, with regard
to the LPG fuel pricing, BELCO provided fuel delivery prices based on recent
discussions with a major fuel supplier.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, recent actual fuel commodity price data
for HFO and LFO.
Leidos modeled certain critical fuel adders associated with delivered pricing for
Bermuda, including adders for through-put, freight and supply, duty, and other
additional taxes with regard to HFO and LFO based on data provided by BELCO.
BELCO provided, and Leidos relied upon, fuel supplier indicative commodity
pricing for LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel delivered to Bermuda. This supplier also
included revised fuel cost adders for the LPG ISO and LPG Bulk fuel supply.
The estimated cost and schedule of the LNG infrastructure for the full conversion of
generation to LNG were developed on the basis of input from the 2014 Liquefied
13
LPG Bulk has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model for purposes of the LPG Only
cases defined earlier in this report and further below.
14
LNG ISO has been modeled and is retained in the BELCO fuel model. This fuel is assumed to be
deployed only for modeling the CHP microgeneration candidate resources at this time.
15
Ibid.

Section 4
Natural Gas Supply Feasibility Study Report, which reflected an LNG offloading,
storage, regasification and natural gas pipeline infrastructure capital cost estimate of
approximately $114M, with scheduled completion in 2020.
The LNG infrastructure cost for the partial conversion of generation to LNG were
estimated based on the study noted above with capital cost deductions associated
with a smaller LNG storage tank and the removal of the natural gas pipeline to the
Central Plant. Partial conversion LNG infrastructure costs total approximately
$75M.
Each of the adders, as well as other values that were provided by BELCO in dollars
per barrel or dollars per US gallon, have been converted to an all-in dollars per
MMBtu using the ratio of MMBtu of fuel per unit input using HHV specifications
as provided by BELCO. These adder amounts were then combined with the
commodity component to produce the final delivered price forecast for each fuel. In
general, adders have been escalated at inflation over the longer-term forecast
horizon.
Figures 4-10 to 4-12 below contain a summary of the core commodity component
(without any adders), as well as the all-in delivered price (with adders), associated with
all of the fuel prepared for evaluation purposes. The all-in cost is shown both with and
without the impact of the import duty.
Base Case: Commodity Prices Only

30.00
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)
Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)
Base Case: LPG - ISO (NYMEX 2016-2018)
25.00
Base Case: LPG - Bulk (NYMEX 2016-2018)
Base Case: LNG - Bulk (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
Base Case: LNG - ISO (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
20.00 Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
$/mmBtu
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 4-10 Base Case Commodity Price Forecast

45
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term) The bulk fuel prices are
inclusive of the bulk supply
infrastructure capital cost
40 recovery adder.
35
Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near
Term 2016-2019)
30
$/mmBtu
25
20
15
10
Figure 4-11 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (with Import Duty)
Base Case: All-In Delivered Cost

(excludes Fuel Import Duty)
45.00
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term) The bulk fuel prices are
inclusive of the bulk supply
Base Case: Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term) infrastructure capital cost
40.00 recovery adder.
35.00
Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term 2016-2019)
30.00
$/mmBtu
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Figure 4-12 Base Case All-in Delivered Fuel Forecast (without Import Duty)
The series of figures (Figure 4-13 through Figure 19) that follow provide graphical
summaries for each fuel that reflect not only the commodity itself but also the build up

Section 4
to delivered pricing. Each of the figures represents a stacked bar chart, where the
specific component of the bar in each year shows the contribution of each component
of the forecast to the ultimate delivered price. Note that the units in each graph are
specific to the fuel in question. The complete details for forecast development can be
found in Appendix C of this report. BELCO indicated that the fuel import duty is
potentially subject to change in an effort to maintain revenue neutrality of the
Bermudian Government. For purposes of dispatch modeling, the fuel import duty is to
be included based on current rates as reported by BELCO.
Base Case: Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)

200
Unesco Tax
180 Duty
Freight & Supply
160 Through-put
Commodity Price for IRP

140
120
$/bbl
100
80
60
40
20
Figure 4-13 Base Case LFO Forecast (with Import Duty)


200
Unesco Tax
180 Duty
Freight & Supply
160 Through-put

140
120
$/bbl
100
80
60
40
20
Figure 4-14 Base Case HFO Forecast (with Import Duty)

2.00
Duty
1.80 Inland Freight - BM
ISO container
1.60 Supplier Commodity Charge

1.40
1.20
$/gal
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 4-15 Base Case LPG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty)

Section 4

2.00
LPG Bulk Supply Infrastructure Cost
Unesco Tax
1.80
Duty
Annual Infrastructure O&M Fee
1.60 Supplier Commodity Charge
1.40
1.20
$/gal
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 4-16 Base Case LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate) Forecast (with Import Duty)
35.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Freight
30.00
Administration Fee
LNG ISO Tank Fee
Supplier Commodity Surcharge
25.00 Commodity (HH)
20.00
$/mmBtu
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 4-17 Base Case LNG ISO Forecast (with Import Duty)

25.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Pipeline Transportation (intended to represent mainland)
20.00 Commodity Adder
Shipping
Commodity (HH)
LNG Storage & Regasification Infrastructure Cost
15.00
$/mmBtu
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 4-18 Base Case LNG Bulk Full Conversion Forecast (with Import Duty)
Base Case: LNG - Bulk Partial Conversion (NYMEX Henry Hub Near Term
2016-2019)
25.00
Unesco Tax
Duty
Pipeline Transportation (intended to represent mainland)
20.00
Commodity Adder
Shipping
Commodity (HH)
LNG Storage & Regasification Infrastructure Cost
15.00
$/mmBtu
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 4-19 Base Case LNG Bulk Partial Conversion Forecast (with Import Duty)

Section 4
Fuel Price Volatility

Fuel price volatility was projected based upon the range of potential fuel prices reflected
across cases presented in the EIA 2015 AEO. For this purpose, High Fuel Price and
Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on AEO scenarios that represent
the highest and lowest commodity price for each commodity that underpins the fuel in
question. Table 4-4 below provides the key defining the AEO scenarios that have been
used for the High and Low Fuel Price Scenarios utilized in the BELCO 2016 IRP.
Figures 4-20 through 4-23 provide a graphical representation of the fuel price scenarios
for each fuel type.
Table 4-4
Fuel Price Scenarios AEO Case Basis
Fuel Type AEO Case for High AEO Case for Low
Fuel Scenario Fuel Sceanrio
Light Fuel Oil (LFO) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) High Oil Price Low Oil Price
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) High Oil Price High Resource
Fuel Oil #2 (LFO - NYMEX Near Term)

60.00
BASE:
LOW:
50.00
HIGH
40.00
$/MMBtu
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Figure 4-20 Base, High and Low LFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

Fuel Oil #6 (HFO - NYMEX Near Term)

50.00
BASE:
45.00
LOW:
40.00
HIGH
35.00
30.00
$/MMBtu
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Figure 4-21 Base, High and Low HFO All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)
LPG Bulk (BELCO Estimate)

20.00
BASE:
18.00
LOW:
16.00
HIGH
14.00
12.00
$/MMBtu
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Figure 4-22 Base, High, and Low LPG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)

Section 4
LNG Bulk (NYMEX Near Term)

25.00
BASE:
LOW:
20.00
HIGH
15.00
$/MMBtu
10.00
5.00
0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Figure 4-23 Base, High, and Low LNG All-in Delivered Fuel Forecasts (with Import Duty)
It is critical to note that the volatility assumptions are being modeled such that they only
impact the commodity portion of BELCOs overall fuel cost (i.e., the volatility
assumptions would only be applied to the commodity component when developing the
high and low fuel price forecasts). The other components of BELCOs fuel cost
represent a significant portion of the fuel burden. For example, in the case of LNG, the
commodity component of fuel cost is approximately 22-24 percent of the total delivered
fuel cost (depending on whether a Partial or Full Conversion case is considered),
whereas the commodity component for LFO and HFO is 61 percent and 54 percent,
respectively. Legacy fuel volatility approaches prepared for BELCO in prior projects
remain available as needed when scenario development occurs.
4.9 Renewable Energy Portfolio Targets

While there currently is no mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), BELCO
and Leidos have partnered to align the IRP with the policy from the government
regarding the electricity sector released in June 2015. Appendix B summarizes the
capacity sizes selected for utility-scale renewable deployment. Renewable resource
options will be forced in to the dispatch model in certain cases (to be defined in
partnership with BELCO) with associated take as available dispatch profiles, and
Leidos will calculate the resultant proportion of energy and capacity served by
renewable resources resulting from those utility-scale options. The tractability of the

aspirational mix indicated in the updated government policy will be compared against
the dispatch cases.
4.10 Transmission System Constraints and Capital

Expenditures
BELCO has provided Leidos with a detailed spreadsheet summarizing projected capital
expenditures on the transmission and distribution system. Leidos has engaged in
discussions with BELCO personnel to discuss the details and timing of these
expenditures. Based on those discussions, the expenditures can be categorized as
follows:
Mission-Critical Expenditures These capital expenditures have been deemed
necessary irrespective of load growth or contraction or capacity additions over the
Study Period.
Load Growth Dependent Expenditures These capital expenditures are based on
potential new load additions and general load growth.
Integration Expenditures Beyond Central Plant These capital expenditures reflect
cost estimates to interconnect capacity additions that may occur outside the scope of
the Central Plant.
Given that the Mission Critical capital expenditures are anticipated to have an impact
on the BELCO rate base, and in an effort to fully capture power supply costs, these
expenditures will be included in the dispatch analysis as discrete costs. In addition,
based on information provided by BELCO, Leidos assumed approximately $25 million
in interconnection costs associated with utility-scale wind generation, and have included
that cost estimate as part of the overall cost of those resources. Based on information
provided by BELCO, Leidos assumed approximately $2.8 million, $1.1 million and
$11.7 million in interconnection costs associated with utility-scale PV generation for
the 5 MW, 5 MW (PPA) and 20 MW options, respectively, and have included that cost
estimate as part of the overall cost of those resources.
4.11 Qualitative Analysis of Candidate Resources

In order to provide a holistic evaluation of the supply-side and demand-side resources,
and to ensure that non-monetary factors that are critical to the success of the IRP but not
quantified in the load dispatch modeling are carefully considered, the IRP process
includes a qualitative evaluation of each candidate resource. The qualitative assessment
criteria used as a basis for the evaluation and the maximum scores that are allocated to
each criterion have been developed specifically for this IRP and reflect BELCOs
interpretation of their significance. The results of the qualitative evaluation were
considered together with the results from the quantitative analysis in arriving at the
recommendations for the action plan arising from this IRP exercise. The importance of
the qualitative assessment is highlighted in the consideration of renewable energy
resources for the preferred expansion plan to address BELCOs sustainability objective,
since the least cost plan based on the quantitative analysis may exclude these resources.

Section 4
Descriptions of the criteria used for the qualitative assessment along with the maximum
scores allocated to each one is provided in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5
Qualitative Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Qualitative Factor Factor Description
Score
The degree to which the asset
1 Supply Quality enhances or reinforces system 20
reliability as a firm resource
The degree to which the asset will
Environmental
2 cause a reduction in the emission 20
Sustainability
of Greenhouse Gases by BELCO
contributes to resource/fuel
Security and Cost diversity to make Bermuda
3 20
Resilience resilient to shocks caused by
dramatic changes in the cost and
availability of fuel
4 Logistics provides for ease of logistics and 20
implementation
contributes to the economic
5 Economic Development 20
Development for Bermuda with a
focus on job creation
Total Maximum Score 100
The results of the qualitative analysis are presented in Section 3 of this report. The
information gleaned from the qualitative analysis will be combined with the direct
financial implications of the dispatch cases and LCOE screening to inform the
recommended resource plan for BELCO in terms of short term, medium term, and long
term asset decisions. It is important to note that in some instances, qualitative factors
will bolster the relative standing of a given candidate resource, and in others, strictly
economic resources may score lower in key categories that reflect BELCOs current
resource planning environment.
4.12 Alignment with the National Electricity Sector Policy

of Bermuda
environmentally responsible, and low cost electricity to end users. The policy also

defines the boundaries and roles of the Regulatory Authority and the Electric Utility,
creating a roadmap to enable a collaborative, iterative planning effort that fosters further
development of distributed resources and proactively works towards a mature demand-
side management portfolio that can reduce long term energy usage in a cost-effective
manner.
According to the policy document, the planning paradigm for Bermudas long term
electricity sector resource development and procurement will be predicated upon an IRP
process as the foundational basis for making decisions. The utilitys role is defined as
providing bulk generation, as well as transmission, distribution, and retail services, with
additional participation by IPPs and distributed generators who may sell electricity to
the utility at economical rates and with tariff structures that ensure that the utility can
recover costs plus an equitable rate of return. The policy also defines an IRP review role
for the Regulatory Authority, which will be overseen by the government. The
Regulatory Authority will also be responsible for processing and considering feedback
on energy policy from end-users. If the Regulatory Authority is not satisfied that the
draft IRP meets this Policys objectives it submits questions or guidance to the Electric
Utility. The Electric Utility responds to questions and critiques by submitting a revised
draft IRP to the Regulatory Authority for reconsideration. This iterative process
continues until the Regulatory Authority is satisfied with the IRP and it is finalized.
The updated policy goes on to define an aspirational mix of future resources that
essentially encompass the boundary of resource options evaluated in this IRP, including
LNG resources, utility-scale and small-scale PV, cost-effective demand-side
management initiatives, the continued operation and expansion of the Tynes Bay waste-
to-energy facility, and future additional renewable resources that are hypothesized to be
cost competitive relative to LNG resources sometime in the future. The policy is careful
to note that as the Electric Utility endeavors to complete its IRP, reviews and revisions
to the aspirational mix using the best available data at the time the IRP is produced are
expected as part of the planning process. Consequently, investment decisions made
through the IRP process may differ from those shown in the aspirational mix, and there
are no specific penalties associated with deviation from a set standard. Table 4-6
provides a top-level overview of the aspirational mix of resources as a percent of total
energy generation as elucidated in the policy (note: the policy also assumes
approximately 5 percent abatement through demand-side management initiatives):
Table 4-6
June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy Aspirational Energy Mix
Resource Type 2020 2025 2035


Section 4
abatement targets.
objectives of the updated energy policy. As a result of the holistic approach to resource
planning deployed, as well as the detail and transparency of the accompanying
Assumptions Document (Section 5 of this report), the IRP is aligned with the
aspirational mix within the updated policy in terms of the diversity of resources
considered and the incorporation of indirect (qualitative) aspects of evaluation. As part
of the policy, an aspirational mix of resources relative to BAU conditions is delineated,
and the intent of the IRP is to estimate the cost of the BAU case as compared to
alternatives. Additionally, sensitivities with respect to carbon monetization and other
key long term levers can be executed as future IRP cases are defined in partnership with
BELCO, and as the IRP process becomes internalized.
The specific tactics that are deployed in the IRP process to ensure alignment with the
policy include the following:
Holistic and diverse examination of feasible supply-side and demand-side resources,
including LNG, PV, battery storage, distributed generation in the form of CHP, and
the proposed DSM measures described herein, ensure alignment with the long-range
aspirational mix elucidated in the updated energy policy.
Detailed and transparent assumptions regarding load growth, capacity needs,
logistical constraints related to new capacity being integrated into the system, and
the modeling methodology deployed to evaluate the economics of options fosters the
iterative process of review of the IRP as envisioned in the policy.
Tables summarizing resource options cost and performance characteristics as
developed for the 2015 BELCO IRP can be compared to sources and assumptions
compiled as part of the updated energy policys cost estimates for the BAU and
aspirational mix cases.
Production cost modeling cases can be deployed to capture the aspirational mix,
recognizing the limitations of the as yet undefined future renewable resource; to
conquer that challenge, the component of the portfolio comprising the renewable
resource has been assumed to be cost-equivalent to LNG, which allows for the
analysis to capture the same cost implications using an LNG deployment case.
The qualitative analysis of each resource option provides further opportunity for
Energy Authority and other stakeholder commentary regarding the indirect benefits
attributable to certain resources.
Emissions rates of key resource options can be used to support cases associated with
carbon monetization or other emissions tracking that may be of interest to IRP
stakeholders as the IRP process is internalized.
The updated energy policy includes key assumptions related to the cost of LNG
infrastructure, the cost of future resource options, and the extent of DSM
participation that can be benchmarked to the results of the IRP in the iterative fashion
envisioned as part of the plan.

As noted above, all of these tactics are embedded in the IRP process and consequently,
there is no additional structure contemplated to be needed in order to be in alignment
with the updated policy. The public commentary and challenge mechanisms envisioned
by the policy that will involve IPPs as well as the public are best fostered through the
Assumptions Document (Section 4 of this report) and the IRP reporting structure used
in this report for the 2016 IRP.
It should be noted that the policy also requires a procurement plan as defined within the
boundary of the IRP. Once the IRP is completed, a procurement strategy and plan should
be developed around the resources that are selected within the IRP for downstream
consideration. BELCO has already engaged in scoping certain limited procurement
activities (e.g., battery storage RFP process, LNG facility feasibility study) that can be
leveraged to provide procurement guidance across the entire portfolio. Refer to Section
3 of this report for further details regarding the proposed procurement plan as suggested
by the results of the IRP.
4.13 Production Cost Case Definitions

Based on discussions with BELCO and the sum total of work conducted as delineated
in this report, the following cases are the subject of the production cost modeling, as
predicated on Base Case 16 assumptions across each of the inputs to the IRP (e.g. load,
fuel). It is important to note that while the definitions below capture certain decisions
which were prescribed, or deterministic in nature, all of the potential resources
considered in each case are defined. Some resources included in a case definition
ultimately may not have been modeled within a case as a result of evaluating the LCOE
tool results, among other indicators.
1. Business As Usual (Fuel Oil Case) this case is predicated upon the following:
a. addition of traditional (liquid fuel oil-fired resources) to replace existing
resources based on assumed retirement dates
b. the capacity expansion will serve BELCO load in a manner that minimizes
long term production cost given the available resources in each year
c. BESS resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct feedback
from BELCO
d. CHP resources will NOT be considered in this case per direct feedback from
BELCO
2. Energy Policy Aspirational Mix Case this case is based on a prescribed set of
resource additions that will attempt to mirror, as closely as possible, the
aspirational mix of generation promulgated by the June 2015 National Energy
Policy as released by the Bermuda government. With respect to the generic
renewable resource that remains undefined, the IRP relies upon the simplifying
assumption that such resource will be equivalent in cost to a natural gas resource
addition in the year in which the policy assumes that the generic renewable
resource will be added. This allows for the modeling of a generic renewable
16
The BESS system will be modeled at the low end of capital cost estimates (i.e. minus 15%).

Section 4
resource with the same characteristics as the natural gas option parameterized
herein.
3. Preliminary Least Cost Case this case reflects the preliminary least cost
combination of resources as determined by the production cost model as a
function of various simulations of combinations of resources.
4. Full Conversion LNG Case with Renewables and DSM this case is predicated
upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply to
Bermuda, including a pipeline for delivery of natural gas to the existing
central utility plant site and LNG pricing commensurate with the Potential
Supplier Estimate provided to Leidos by BELCO
b. the conversion of certain existing units to operate on LNG
i. the conversion of units E5, E6, E7, and E8
ii. the conversion of units GT5, GT6, GT7, and GT8
c. June 2018 Commission Phase 1 (N1-N3) of North Power Station (NPS)
installation of 3 DF units
i. Initial operation on HFO until conversion to natural gas (LNG) in 2020
ii. Facilitates the retirement of entire old power station (D3, D8, D10 and
early retirement of D14, D15) and units E1 & E2 in June 2017
d. January 2020 Commission Phase 2 (N4) of NPS installation of 1
additional DF unit
i. Facilitates the retirement of units E3&E4 in 2019
e. potential new supply side resources operating on LNG of a CT or CC type
to be located at the existing central utility plant site
f. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
g. Utility Scale PV
h. DSM including:
i. integrated solar thermal/PV residential roof-top systems screened out
due to high LCOE
ii. 5MW-AC block of Solar PV (Utility RFP - PPA) priced out at 25 cents
per kWh with 0 percent escalation through the end of the Study Period
and installed in annual increments of 1MW each beginning in 2019
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year
horizon

5. Business as Usual (Fuel-Oil Case) with Renewables and DSM this case is
a. Same capacity expansion options for thermal resources as Case 1
b. the addition of a BESS (for spinning reserve)
c. Utility Scale PV
d. DSM including:
due to high LCOE
iii. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year
horizon
6. Partial Conversion LPG with Optimized Renewables and DSM this case is
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LPG supply to
Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to accommodate the
installation of approximately 60 MW of LPG-fueled generation resources at
a new site, co-located with the LPG storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of certain existing units:
i. GT 5, 6, 7 & 8 remain on LFO
ii. E5-E8 remain on HFO operation until retirement
d. Utility Scale PV
e. DSM including:
due to high LCOE
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year horizon

Section 4
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to supplement items

in (a)
7. Partial Conversion LNG with Renewables and DSM this case is predicated
upon the following:
a. the addition of necessary infrastructure to facilitate bulk LNG supply to
Bermuda, including transmission system upgrades to accommodate the
installation of approximately 50 MW of LNG-fueled generation resources at
a new site, co-located with the LNG storage and regasification facility
b. Refrain from conversion of any existing units:
d. Utility Scale PV (with a capacity of 28 MW-DC (25 MW-AC))
i. the addition of a BESS (for renewable support)
e. DSM including:
due to high LCOE
iii. CHP
iv. EE&EC savings at cumulative 0.5 percent per year for 20 year horizon
f. Additional generic gas unit(s) as needed beyond ~2025 to supplement items
in (f)
Definition of Final Cases and Additional Desired Sensitivities

In addition to the Reference Case (Case 1), the Four Finalist Cases 17 subjected to the
sensitivities defined below are as follows:
Full Conversion LNG Case (lowest production cost LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 4)
Fuel Oil Case (lowest production cost Fuel-Oil expansion plan) (Case 5)
Partial Conversion LPG Case (logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 6)
Partial Conversion LNG Case (logistically plausible LNG-centric expansion plan)
(Case 7)
The sensitivities applied to the selected cases are defined as follows:
1. Fuel Cost (based on 2015 EIA AEO range) based on discussions with BELCO,
High Fuel Price and Low Fuel Price Scenarios have been developed based on
17
Per discussions with BELCO, the Four Finalist Cases were selected from the ranking based on the
levelized cost results and were subjected to sensitivity scenarios.

AEO scenarios that represent the highest and lowest commodity price for each
commodity that underpins the fuel in question. As discussed further in Section
4.8, the scenario that represents the High Fuel Price Case for LFO, HFO, LPG,
and LNG is the 2015 AEO High Oil Case; the Low Fuel Price Case is based on
the AEO Low Oil Case for HFO, RFO, and LPG but is based on the AEO High
Resource case for LNG.
2. Carbon Monetization Leidos has researched an updated March 2016 report
from Synapse that captures a revised view on potential carbon prices this
reports pricing is applied to each production cost models results on the back
end, in addition to reporting related to the actual tons of carbon emitted for each
case.
3. WACC - The IRP evaluates 10.5 percent as the high case (reflecting more
upside risk on interest rates and potentially less gearing with less favorable
regulation) and 9.0 percent as the low case.
4. N-2 vs. N-3 This is self-explanatory; however, this sensitivity is NOT applied
to the Base/Reference Case, as there is no BESS considered in the
Base/Reference Case.
5. High and Low Load Forecast The IRP evaluated a High and Low forecast.
The High Case reflects a long-term growth rate of 0.9 percent per year, while
the Low Case reflects a resumption of the recent contraction in load, with a long-
term rate of decline of 0.4 percent per year.
4.14 Carbon Monetization Pricing

Table 4-7 below summarizes the carbon pricing to be used in the Carbon Monetization
sensitivities for the Base, High, and Low Cases as based on a March 2016 Synapse study
that estimates a hypothetical price for carbon emissions. The Synapse carbon projection
is based on a series of analyses and assumptions regarding the possibility of a mature
carbon market within the mainland US. The March 2016 projection takes the recent
stay of the Clean Power Plan, the landmark carbon legislation proposed by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, into consideration. However, the report does not
anticipate that the stay will ultimately reverse the trajectory towards some form of
nationwide cap and trade system or carbon tax, and notes that some states continue to
work towards compliance plans despite the stay, and amidst heightened uncertainty
regarding the actual timing of compliance requirements. Prices are shown
commensurate with the defined Study Period.

Section 4
Table 4-7
Summary of Assumed Carbon Pricing
Low Case Base Case High Case
Year ($2015 per ton) ($2015 per ton) ($2015 per ton)
2017 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

2018 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2019 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2020 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2021 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2022 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00
2023 $15.75 $20.75 $26.00
2024 $16.50 $21.50 $27.00
2025 $17.25 $22.25 $28.00
2026 $18.00 $23.00 $29.00
2027 $18.75 $23.75 $30.00
2028 $19.50 $24.50 $34.25
2029 $20.25 $25.25 $38.50
2030 $21.00 $26.00 $42.75
2031 $21.75 $29.00 $47.00
2032 $22.50 $32.00 $51.25
2033 $23.25 $35.00 $55.50
2034 $24.00 $38.00 $59.75
2035 $24.75 $41.00 $64.00
2036 $25.50 $44.00 $68.25

APPENDICES to
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
Bermuda Electric Light Company
June 30, 2016

Table of Contents
Appendices
APPENDIX A - Load Forecast
APPENDIX B - Resource Characteristics
APPENDIX C Fuel Price Projections
APPENDIX D Detailed Levelized Cost of Energy and Scenario Results

D1 Levelized Cost of Energy
D2 Case Unit Matrix
D3 Case 1 Results
D4 Case 2 Results
D5 Case 3 Results
D6 Case 4 Results
D7 Case 5 Results
D8 Case 6 Results
D9 Case 7 Results
APPENDIX E Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Scoring
E1 Qualitative Scoring of Candidate Resource Types

E2 Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Scoring
APPENDIX F Discussion Document: Candidate Resources Requiring More

In-Depth Study

Appendix A
LOAD FORECAST

BELCO 2016 Load Forecast: Base Case AppendixA
Historical and Projected Annual Energy for Load and System Peak Demand
(Years 2009-2035)
Energy for Load System Peak Demand

Actual Percent Wthr Norm Percent Wthr Norm Actual Percent Load Wthr Norm Percent Wthr Norm
Year (MWh) Change (MWh) Change Impact (MW) Change Factor (MW) Change Impact
2009 738,455 728,846 1.3% 122.3 69% 118.1 3.4%
2010 730,224 1.1% 724,600 0.6% 0.8% 122.8 0.4% 68% 123.3 4.4% 0.4%
Historical
2011 716,784 1.8% 711,982 1.7% 0.7% 118.2 3.7% 69% 116.2 5.7% 1.6%
2012 688,179 4.0% 691,902 2.8% 0.5% 113.7 3.8% 69% 111.6 4.0% 1.8%
2013 665,204 3.3% 669,289 3.3% 0.6% 110.1 3.2% 69% 108.6 2.7% 1.4%
2014 648,863 2.5% 651,471 2.7% 0.4% 106.8 3.0% 69%
2015 662,307 2.1% 652,385 0.1% 1.5% 108.0 1.1% 70%
2016 660,699 0.2% 109.0 0.9% 69%
2017 664,917 0.6% 109.7 0.6% 69%
2018 665,790 0.1% 110.0 0.3% 69%
2019 667,921 0.3% 110.4 0.3% 69%
2020 669,929 0.3% 110.7 0.3% 69%
2021 671,942 0.3% 111.0 0.3% 69%
2022 673,962 0.3% 111.4 0.3% 69%
2023 675,988 0.3% 111.7 0.3% 69%
2024 678,019 0.3% 112.0 0.3% 69%
Projected
2025 680,057 0.3% 112.4 0.3% 69%

2026 682,101 0.3% 112.7 0.3% 69%
2027 684,151 0.3% 113.1 0.3% 69%
2028 686,207 0.3% 113.4 0.3% 69%
2029 688,270 0.3% 113.7 0.3% 69%
2030 690,338 0.3% 114.1 0.3% 69%
2031 692,413 0.3% 114.4 0.3% 69%
2032 694,494 0.3% 114.8 0.3% 69%
2033 696,581 0.3% 115.1 0.3% 69%
2034 698,675 0.3% 115.4 0.3% 69%
2035 700,775 0.3% 115.8 0.3% 69%
2009-2015 1.8% 2.1% 69%
AAGR
2016-2025 0.3% 0.3% 69%

2026-2035 0.3% 0.3% 69%
BELCO_2016LoadForecast_20160501.xlsx

Appendix B
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

Appendix B1
EXISTING RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016
ExistingGeneratingResourceCharacteristics
Appendix B1
Plant Name
Unit No Units E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Prime Mover (see below) IC-SSD IC-SSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO)
Secondary Fuel Type Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Propane conversion possible N N N N N
Natural gas conversion possible N N N N Y
Unit Status (see below) OP OP OP OP OP
Commercial In-Service Date 7/1/1984 3/1/1985 11/1/1989 9/1/1989 4/1/2000
Hours Run (as of Feb 2013) 200,602 187,001 159,585 156,461 97,359
Planned Retirement Date After Peak of Year 2018 2018 2019 2019 2030
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018
Must Run? Y/N Y Y N N N
Cogen? Y/N N N N N N
Minimum Load Net Capability

Summer / Winter MW 8.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 7.00
Full-Load Net Capability

Max Rating MW 12.20 11.20 10.10 9.50 14.30
%'age of time at rating (2012)
4-5 MW
5-6 MW 1.7%
6-7 MW 5.1% 0.0%
7-8 MW 37.3% 0.0%
8-9 MW 0.5% 6.6%
9 - 10 MW 2.5% 14.0% 91.6%
10 - 11 MW 0.0% 6.0% 42.9%
11 - 12 MW 94.3% 93.4% 10.5%
12 - 13 MW 3.1% 24.7%
13-14 MW 10.5%
>14 MW 53.8%
Average Net Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh 8,556 8,638 8,521 8,336 8,156
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,556 8,638 8,737 9,162 8,718
Incremental Heat Rate at Max Rating Btu/kWh
Emission Rates (after control):

SO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 4.66 4.66 4.76 4.76 5.70
NOx Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 9.00 9.00 9.19 9.19 10.35
CO2 Emission Rate lbs/MMBtu 173.72 173.72 173.72 173.72 173.72
O&M Costs:
Variable O&M (w/o Emiss or Start Costs) $/MWh 9.40 9.40 11.10 11.10 11.10
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 24.00 24.00 18.00 18.00 18.00
Startup:
Startup Maint. & Labor $/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Start Fuel MMBtu/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Typical Operation hours/start n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $/kW-yr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Book Value 0 0 0 0 6,389,509
Final Depreciation Date 2004 2004 2009 2009 2029
Years of Debt Service Remaining (2014 on) Years 0 0 0 0 15
Transmission/Distribution Costs $/kW-yr
Actual Availability:
2011 81.7% 87.5% 89.8% 94.2% 93.2%
2012 76.4% 83.4% 79.5% 89.0% 86.9%
Planned Availability (i.e. planned scheduled
maintenance outage time)
2011 92.6% 94.3% 94.0% 96.4% 96.2%
2012 88.8% 91.5% 98.4% 96.4% 92.6%
Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 3,000 hours
Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 12,000 hours 12,000 hours 13,500 hours 13,500 hours 12,000 hours
(Intermediate service planned duration ~1-2 weeks)
PROMODAssumptions_20160629
BELCOIRP2016
Appendix B1
Plant Name
Unit No Units E6 E7 E8 D3 D8
Prime Mover (see below) IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-H (HFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible N N N N N
Natural gas conversion possible Y Y Y Y Y
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018
Must Run? Y/N N N N N N

Summer / Winter MW 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 4.00

Max Rating MW 14.30 14.30 14.30 7.00 7.00
4-5 MW
5-6 MW 10.3% 13.4%
6-7 MW 65.2% 1.0%
7-8 MW 24.5% 85.6%
8-9 MW 0.6%
9 - 10 MW 1.3% 3.5%
10 - 11 MW 0.1% 0.0%
11 - 12 MW 7.6% 0.4%
12 - 13 MW 1.8% 0.3% 9.4%
13-14 MW 2.3% 6.6% 0.0%
>14 MW 86.4% 88.7% 90.6%
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,711 8,420 8,200 9,790 8,759

O&M Costs:
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00
Startup:
Debt Service
Net Book Value 6,389,509 3,157,628 3,157,628 0 0
2011 83.3% 85.7% 90.8% 94.4% 83.4%
2012 82.8% 79.3% 76.2% 94.2% 81.4%
2011 94.3% 93.7% 93.4% 96.2% 98.1%
2012 91.8% 95.6% 94.0% 96.4% 96.2%
Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 3,000 hours Every 4,500 hours Every 4,500 hours
Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 12,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours 18,000 hours
BELCOIRP2016
Appendix B1
Plant Name
Unit No Units D10 D14 D15 GT6 GT7
Prime Mover (see below) IC-MSD IC-MSD IC-MSD GT GT
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible N N N Y Y
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 2015 2035 2035

Summer / Winter MW 4.00 3.00 3.00

Max Rating MW 7.00 4.50 5.00 4.50 4.50
4-5 MW 62.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5-6 MW 32.6% 100.0%
6-7 MW 0.0%
7-8 MW 5.2%
8-9 MW
9 - 10 MW
10 - 11 MW
11 - 12 MW
12 - 13 MW
13-14 MW
>14 MW
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh 8,901 9,435 9,435

O&M Costs:
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.80 0.80
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 18.00 18.00 18.00 9.60 9.60
Startup:
Debt Service
Net Book Value 0 1,424,465 1,434,642 4,482,007 4,482,007
2011 95.9% 93.0% 90.1% 83.3% 99.0%
2012 90.8% 79.5% 69.6% 66.6% 97.1%
2011 98.1% 98.1% 87.4%
2012 97.5% 97.8% 100.0%
Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Every 4,500 hours Every 4,000 hours Every 4,000 hours Twice a year Twice a year
Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks) 18,000 hours 16,000 hours 16,000 hours
BELCOIRP2016
Appendix B1
Plant Name
Unit No Units GT8 GT4 GT5 GT3E GT3F
Prime Mover (see below) GT GT GT GT GT
Primary Fuel Type (see below) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO) Oil-L (LFO)
Secondary Fuel Type n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Propane conversion possible Y N Y N N
Planned Retirement Date Case 4 LPG with Renewables and DSM 2035 2016 2025 2015 2015

Summer / Winter MW

Max Rating MW 4.50 11.00 13.00 2.50 2.50
4-5 MW 100.0%
5-6 MW
6-7 MW
7-8 MW
8-9 MW
9 - 10 MW
10 - 11 MW
11 - 12 MW 100.0%
12 - 13 MW
13-14 MW 100.0%
>14 MW
Average Net Heat Rate at Min Rating Btu/kWh

O&M Costs:
Fixed O&M $/kW-month 0.80 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 9.60 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40
Startup:
Debt Service
Net Book Value 4,482,007 0 1,251,104 0 0
2011 95.5% 91.9% 99.6% 88.6% 99.4%
2012 97.2% 99.8% 99.0% 99.7% 99.1%
2011
2012
Dependent on Dependent on
Scheduled Maintenance Period/Description Twice a year number of starts number of starts Quarterly Quarterly
~Every year ~Every year
Major Service at :
(Major service planned duration ~2-3 weeks)
Appendix B2
SUPPLYSIDE CANDIDATE RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016 Appendix B2
SupplySideCandidateResourceOptionCharacteristics
ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS1a PS1b PS1c
ICMSD ICMSD ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit New1unit New1unit
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilH(HFO) OilH(HFO) NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Apr48 Apr48 Jan50
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
MinimumLoadNetCapability
Summer/Winter kW 7,000 7,000 7,000
FullLoadNetCapability
MaxGrossRating kW 14,340 13,676 13,676
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 14,000 13,300 13,300
AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 7,900 8,000 8,260

AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 8,480 8,600 8,870
MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00 6.00 6.00

MinimumDownTime Hours none none none
RampUpRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min 1.75 1.75 1.75
EmissionRates(aftercontrol):
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 6.35 0.06 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 8.60 0.91 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 173.72 173.72 116.98
O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 11.516 11.516 11.516
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 1.57 1.57 1.57
FixedO&M $/kWyr 18.845 18.845 18.845
Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start N/A N/A N/A
StartFuel MMBtu/start N/A N/A N/A
TypicalOperation hours/start N/A N/A N/A
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,531 1,765 1,765
Owner'sCost % 10% 10% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,684 1,942 1,942
Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW
Transmission/DistributionCosts $
Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours Every3,000hours Every3,000hours
MajorServiceat:
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks)
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks)
CoincidencePeakFactor %
DegradationFactor %/yr
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
1.ValuesreportedareonanACbasis.
2.AssumesanawarddateofDecember2016.
PROMODAssumptions_20160629.xlsx
ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS2a PS2c PS2d
GT GT GT
PrimeMover(seebelow) New New New
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilL(LFO) LPGdelivered NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan18 Apr18 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan48 2050 2050
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N

MinimumUpTime Hours none none none

O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 19.892 19.892 19.892
Startup:
CapitalCost
Availability: 95.0% 95% 95.0%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 3.0% 3% 3.0%
2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description
30KMajor 30KMajor 30KMajor
MajorServiceat:
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS3a PS3b PS3d
CC(1x1) CC(1x1) CC(1x1)
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit New1unit New1unit
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OilL(LFO) LPGBulk LPGdelivered
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Apr18
PlannedRetirementDate Apr48 Apr48 Apr48
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
Summer/Winter kW 11,600 12,700 12,700

MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00 none none

O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 87.062 87.062 87.062
Startup:
CapitalCost
Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 5.0% 5.0% 5%
2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+ 2outagesperyear+
30KMajor 30KMajor 30KMajor
MajorServiceat:
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo
CandidateResource Units PS3e PS4a1 PS4c
1
CC(1x1) SL SL
PrimeMover(seebelow) New1unit Utility Utility
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG SOL SOL
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Apr18 Apr19
PlannedRetirementDate Jan50 Jan45 Mar44
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
Summer/Winter kW 11,600
%AuxiliaryLoads % 3.7%
AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,350

AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 10,310
MinimumUpTime Hours 6.00

MinimumDownTime Hours none
RampUpRate MW/min 4.80
RampDownRate MW/min 4.80
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.21 none none
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 2.17 none none
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 116.98 none none
O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 3.141
FixedO&M $/kWyr 87.062 44.293 40.117
Startup:
CapitalCost
Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW 562 585

Transmission/DistributionCosts $ 2,810,000 11,700,000
Availability: 90.0% 99.0% 99.0%

2outagesperyear+ InverterReplacement InverterReplacement
30KMajor at15years at15years
MajorServiceat:
CoincidencePeakFactor % 60.0% 60.0%
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.8% 0.8%
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 1,447,000 4,535,000
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo
1
CandidateResource Units PS4d PS5 PS6a1
SL BY
WT
PrimeMover(seebelow) Utility(PPA) SpinResBackup
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) SOL WND OTH
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr19 Jun20 Aug17
PlannedRetirementDate Mar44 Jun40 Aug37
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
Summer/Winter kW
MaxGrossRating kW 5,000 20,000 12MW@15min
%AuxiliaryLoads %
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5,000 20,000 12MW@15min
AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh
AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh
MinimumUpTime Hours none

MinimumDownTime Hours none
RampUpRate MW/min none
RampDownRate MW/min none
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none none
O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 125.631 23.125
Startup:
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 5,250 500
Owner'sCost % 8% 10%
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 0 5,650 550
Transmission/DistributionCosts $/kW 220 1,250

Transmission/DistributionCosts $ 1,100,000 25,000,000
Availability: 99.0% 95.0% 98.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description 2outagesperyear
MajorServiceat:
CoincidencePeakFactor % 60.0%
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.8%
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 4,000,000
CapacityFactor % 35.0%
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo E5
CandidateResource Units PS6b1 PS6c
1
PS7aa
BY BY ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) RenewSupport RenewSupport Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) OTH OTH NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr19 Apr19 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Aug39 Aug39 Jan33
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
Summer/Winter kW 7,000
MaxGrossRating kW 5MW@60min 1.5MW@60min 13,676
%AuxiliaryLoads % 2.5%
MaxNetRating(netofauxiliaryloads) kW 5MW@60min 1.5MW@60min 13,300
AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 8,260

AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 8,870
MinimumUpTime Hours none none 6.00

RampUpRate MW/min none none 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min none none 1.75
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 0.06
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 0.91
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu none none 116.98
O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 33.000 38.000 18.845
Startup:
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 1,500 1,000 247
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 1,650 1,100 272
Availability: 96.0% 96.0% 90.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours
MajorServiceat:
InverterReplacement InverterReplacement
inyear10 inyear10
MajorMaintenanceCapitalCost $ 1,400,000 420,000
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo E6 E7 E8
CandidateResource Units PS7ab PS7ac PS7ad
ICMSD ICMSD ICMSD
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel Refuel
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan33 Jan36 Jan36
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N


O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 18.845 18.845 18.845
Startup:
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 247 247 247
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 272 272 272
Availability: 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Every3,000hours Every3,000hours Every3,000hours
MajorServiceat:
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo GT5 GT6 GT7

CandidateResource Units PS7ca PS7cb PS7cc
GT GT GT
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) LPGdelivered LPGdelivered LPGdelivered
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Apr18 Apr18
PlannedRetirementDate Apr26 Apr36 Apr36
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N


RampUpRate MW/min
RampDownRate MW/min
O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 21.357 10.050 10.050
Startup:
CapitalCost
Availability: 95% 95% 95%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 2% 2% 2%
Dependenton
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description numberofstarts Twiceayear Twiceayear
~Everyyear
MajorServiceat:
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo GT8 GT5 GT6

CandidateResource Units PS7cd PS7da PS7db
GT GT GT
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) LPGdelivered NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Apr18 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Apr36 Jan28 Jan38
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N


RampUpRate MW/min
RampDownRate MW/min
O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 10.050 21.357 10.050
Startup:
CapitalCost
Availability: 95% 95.0% 95.0%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 2% 2.0% 2.0%
Dependenton
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Twiceayear numberofstarts Twiceayear
~Everyyear
MajorServiceat:
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
ExistingUnitNo GT7 GT8

CandidateResource Units PS7dc PS7dd PS12
GT GT ICRecip
PrimeMover(seebelow) Refuel Refuel New4units
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) NG NG NG
CommercialInServiceDate2 Jan20 Jan20
PlannedRetirementDate Jan38 Jan38
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N


RampUpRate MW/min 1.75
RampDownRate MW/min 1.75
O&MCosts:
FixedO&M $/kWyr 10.050 10.050 35.714
Startup:
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel) $/kW 121 121 1,281
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 127 127 1,409
Availability: 95.0% 95.0% 94.0%

ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description Twiceayear Twiceayear Every1500hours
MajorServiceat:
DegradationFactor %/yr 0.0%
CapacityFactor %
EmissionsFactor %
Notes:
Appendix B3
DEMANDSIDE CANDIDATE RESOURCES

BELCOIRP2016
Appendix B3
DemandSideCandidateResourceCharacteristics
PlantName
UnitNo Units DSM1a1 DSM1b1 DSM2b DSM2d DSM3a
1
DSM3b1 DSM3c1
SL SL SL SL SL
CCHP CHP
PrimeMover(seebelow) DistElec DistElec DistH2O DistH2O DistH2O
Make Res Comm Res Res Res
Model Base High Low
PrimaryFuelType(seebelow) SOL LPGBulk LNGBulk SOL SOL SOL
CommercialInServiceDate Jan17 Jan17 Jan18 Jan20 Jan17 Jan17 Jan17
PlannedRetirementDate Jan42 Jan42 Jun36 Jun36 Jan37 Jan37 Jan37
MustRun? Y/N
Cogen? Y/N
MaxRating kW 1.720 86.000 1,870 2,469 3.240 3.240 3.240
Electriccoolingloaddisplaced kW 360 0
TotalLoadImpact kW 2,230 2,469
AverageNetHeatRateatMaxRating btu/kWh 12,028 8,818

AverageNetHeatRateatMinRating btu/kWh 16,000 9,419
SO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.29 0.29
NOxEmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 0.12 0.90
CO2EmissionRate lbs/mmBtu 381.21 376.89
O&MCosts:
VariableO&M(w/oEmissorStartCosts) $/MWh 0.00 0.00 12.13 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
FixedO&M $/kWmonth 3.03 1.69 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30
FixedO&M $/kWyr 36.40 20.22 0.00 0.00 15.60 15.60 15.60
Startup:
StartupMaint.&Labor $/start
StartFuel MMBtu/start
TypicalOperation hours/start
CapitalCost
EPCCost(exclusiveofIDC;NOOwner'sCosts,nonfuel $/kW 5,093 4,651 3,943 1,125 2,808 2,808 2,808
AllInCapitalCost(inclusiveofIDC;nonfuel) $/kW 5,093 4,651 4,534 1,294 2,808 2,808 2,808
Interconnection/InstallationCost(otherthancapital) $/kWyr
Availability: 99.0% 99.0% 92.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

AnnualForcedOutageRate % 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
MinorO/H@
MinorO/H@
40kophours&
ScheduledMaintenancePeriod/Description 30k&Major@ None None None
Major@85kop
80kophours
hours
MajorServiceat: MinorO/H@ Majorservice7 Replacemajor Replacemajor Replacemajor
(Majorserviceplannedduration~23weeks) 30k&Major@ days,Minor componentsin componentsin componentsin
(Intermediateserviceplannedduration~12weeks) 80kophours service3days year13 year13 year13
$2550K
inLTSAVOM
CostofMajorMaintenance(ifapplicable) 0 0 depending 0 0 0
above
$ uponissues
DurationMajorMaintenance(ifapplicable) HrsorWks/Yr
Steambyproduct
temperature F 250
flowrate lb/hr 3,500
mmBtu/hr MMBtu/Hr 8.000 3.434
price $/mmBtu
CoincidencePeakfactor % 60.0% 60.0% 3.9% 4.3% 3.2%

DegradationFactor %/Yr 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Appendix C
FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C1
BASE CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
BaseCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.07 18.33 18.34 18.61 18.86 19.25 19.65 20.09 20.54 20.99 21.49 21.97 22.53 23.08 23.66 24.23 24.81 25.42
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.53 1.56
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 19.32 20.03 20.50 21.26 22.04 23.00 24.01 25.10 26.23 27.41 28.69 29.99 31.45 32.95 34.54 36.16 37.86 39.67
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 11.8% 3.7% 2.3% 3.7% 3.6% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8%
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal 1.25 1.39 1.38
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 20.7% 10.9% 0.2%
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 52.59 58.31 58.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 57.42 63.66 63.51 65.89 68.29 71.26 74.40 77.78 81.28 84.95 88.91 92.94 97.46 102.10 107.02 112.05 117.33 122.93
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 9.69 10.74 10.72 11.12 11.52 12.02 12.55 13.12 13.71 14.33 15.00 15.68 16.44 17.23 18.06 18.91 19.80 20.74
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
Throughput $/mmBtu 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33
Freight&Supply $/bbl 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.22 5.34 5.46 5.59 5.71 5.84 5.97 6.11 6.24 6.38 6.53 6.67 6.82 6.98 7.13
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.20
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00 159.00
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.86 17.95 17.96 18.40 18.85 19.39 19.97 20.58 21.22 21.88 22.60 23.33 24.14 24.98 25.86 26.76 27.70 28.70
BaseCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 28.72 34.43 38.80
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 13.71 14.99 15.99 16.44 16.91 17.46 18.04 18.65 19.29 19.96 20.67 21.42 22.19 23.02 23.89 24.82 25.79 26.75
FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Base_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.58 4.68 4.78 4.89 5.00 5.11 5.23 5.35 5.47 5.59 5.72
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.51 1.54 1.58 1.61 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.68
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
Duty $/mmBtu 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.14 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.62 1.68 1.73
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 12.01 12.57 12.89 13.10 13.42 13.77 14.12 14.48 14.86 15.24 15.62 16.03 16.45 16.90 17.37 17.84
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
Adders
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
Duty $/mmBtu 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.14 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.62 1.68 1.73
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCapitalCostEstimate(available2018)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 15,000
RepaymentPeriod yr 20
FirstPaymentYear yr 2018
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0.00 0.00 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 649,837 651,136 651,839 653,798 655,763 657,734 659,711 661,694 663,683 665,678 667,678 669,685 671,698 673,717 675,742 677,773 679,810 681,853
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 1,904,484 1,908,293 1,910,351 1,916,094 1,921,853 1,927,629 1,933,423 1,939,235 1,945,063 1,950,909 1,956,773 1,962,654 1,968,553 1,974,470 1,980,404 1,986,357 1,992,327 1,998,315
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,498,367 6,511,363 6,518,387 6,537,979 6,557,631 6,577,341 6,597,111 6,616,940 6,636,828 6,656,776 6,676,784 6,696,852 6,716,980 6,737,168 6,757,417 6,777,727 6,798,098 6,818,530
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 11.64 12.18 12.48 12.68 12.98 13.21 13.44 13.68 13.94 14.19 14.44 14.72 15.00 15.30 15.64 15.96
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % 9.6% 14.4% 3.7% 2.8%
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 2.41 2.76 2.86 2.94 3.22 3.39 3.51 3.70 3.86 4.02 4.27 4.37 4.47 4.60 4.69 4.98 5.25 5.53
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 6.90 7.06 7.22 7.38 7.54 7.71 7.89 8.07 8.25 8.43 8.62 8.82 9.01 9.22 9.42 9.64 9.85 10.07
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 2.60 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.84 2.90 2.97 3.03 3.10 3.17 3.24 3.32 3.39 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.71 3.79
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.92 1.96 2.01 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.19
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 18.32 18.75 19.43 19.98 20.49 21.08 21.64 22.22 22.91 23.43 23.95 24.53 25.06 25.85 26.62 27.41
BaseCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.83
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
LNGStorage&RegasificationCapitalCostEstimate(available2020)
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost $(000) 113,771 Adjustedfrom2014$to2020$basedonhistorical&projectedCPI(tobeg2019)
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 0 0 0 0 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136 13,136
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.55 13.93 14.26 14.68 15.05 15.45 15.96 16.26 16.58 16.95 17.25 17.85 18.41 18.99
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
BaseCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.23
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
WACC % 9.75%
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000) 113,771
PartialConversionDeductions
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000) (19,180)
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000) (9,800)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) 84,792
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 0 0 0 0 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429 419,429
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 0 0 0 0 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340 1,015,340
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 0 0 0 0 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482 3,464,482
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.37 14.76 15.09 15.52 15.90 16.30 16.82 17.13 17.45 17.82 18.14 18.74 19.31 19.89
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
DeliveredFuelPriceProjections Units 2034 2035 2036 Source Factor
BaseCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 26.05 26.70 27.35 EIAAEO EIAAEO
InflationFactor 2.25% 1.60 1.63 1.67 BELCO Inflation(3%)
EIAAEOPriceForecast(Nominal$) $/mmBtu 41.57 43.56 45.62 Calc EIAAEO
EIAAnnualPercentChange % 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% Calc EIAAEO
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/gal EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange % Calc
VolumeConversion gal/bbl 42.00 42.00 42.00 EIA
GulfCoastUSLDPlattsNYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl 0.00 0.00 0.00 EnergyVelocity
CommodityPriceforIRP $/bbl 128.82 134.97 141.37 Calc BELCOestimate2015;NYMEXescalation20162017(fromEV);EIAAEO2018andbeyond
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) mmBtu/bbl 5.93 5.93 5.93 BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/mmBtu 21.73 22.77 23.85 Calc
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 8.04 8.23 8.41 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Throughput $/mmBtu 1.36 1.39 1.42 Calc
Freight&Supply $/bbl 7.30 7.46 7.63 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Freight&Supply $/mmBtu 1.23 1.26 1.29 Calc
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 BELCO Flat
LiterperOilBarrel L/bbl 159.00 159.00 159.00 EIA
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 Calc
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 BELCO Flat
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 29.76 30.85 31.99 Calc
BaseCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
GulfCoastNo.6FuelOil3%(MF)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/bbl EnergyVelocity
NYMEXAnnualPercentChange %
Adders
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 27.85 28.96 30.11 Calc
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
BaseCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
OPISMontBelvieuNonTETPropaneplus$0.40/Usgal $/USgal BELCO
CommodityPriceforIRP $/USgal 0.73 0.76 0.78 Calc BELCOestimate20152016;EIAAEO2019andbeyond
FuelSpec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
Adders
SupplierCommodityCharge $/USgal 0.53 0.55 0.56 BELCO Inflation(3%)
BELCOfuelspec Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
SupplierCommodityCharge $/mmBtu 5.84 5.98 6.11 Calc
ISOcontainer $/USgal 0.17 0.18 0.18 BELCO Inflation(3%)
ISOcontainer $/mmBtu 1.88 1.93 1.97 Calc
InlandFreightBM $/USgal 0.06 0.07 0.07 BELCO Inflation(3%)
InlandFreightBM $/mmBtu 0.70 0.71 0.73 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
Duty $/USgal 0.16 0.17 0.17 Calc
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/USgal 91,410.00 91,410.00 91,410.00 BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.33 18.83 19.34 Calc
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
BaseCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
Adders
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/USgal 0.05 0.05 0.05 Leidos Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.52 0.53 0.54 Calc
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost $(000) BELCO
RepaymentPeriod yr Leidos
FirstPaymentYear yr BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 1,731.93 1,731.93 1,731.93 Calc
AnnualSystemEnergyfromForecast MWh 683,902 683,902 683,902 Leidos LoadForecast
AverageElectricGeneratingEfficiency % 34% 34% 34% Leidos
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate MWh 2,004,321 2,004,321 2,004,321 Calc
ConversionFactor mmBtu/MWh 3.41 3.41 3.41 EIA
AnnualFuelConsumptionEstimate mmbtu 6,839,023 6,839,023 6,839,023 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/Usgal 0.02 0.02 0.02 Calc
LPGBulkSupplyInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 0.25 0.25 0.25 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.30 16.65 17.00 Calc
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
BaseCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
HenryHubNaturalGas(NG)NYMEXNearTermStrip $/mmBtu EnergyVelocity
Commodity(HH) $/mmBtu 5.81 6.08 6.37 Calc NYMEX20162018(fromEV);EIAAEOescalation2019andbeyond
Adders
SupplierCommoditySurcharge $/mmBtu 10.30 10.53 10.77 BELCO Inflation(3%)
LNGISOTankFee $/mmBtu 3.88 3.96 4.05 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AdministrationFee $/mmBtu 2.24 2.29 2.35 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Freight $/mmBtu 4.58 4.68 4.79 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 BELCO Flat
BELCOfuelspec(HHV) Btu/liter 21,832.25 21,832.25 21,832.25 BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 28.22 29.02 29.85 Calc
BaseCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 8.78 8.97 9.17 BELCO Inflation(3%)
CommodityAdder $/mmBtu 0.87 0.91 0.95 BELCO Inflation(3%)
PipelineTransportation(intendedtorepresentmainland) $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 BELCO Inflation(3%)
AnnualInfrastructureO&MFee $/mmBtu 0.80 0.82 0.83 BELCO Inflation(3%)
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AnnualCapitalCostDebtService $(000) 13,136 13,136 13,136 Calc
LNGStorage&RegasificationInfrastructureCost $/mmBtugas 1.92 1.92 1.92 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 19.59 20.17 20.78 Calc
Appendix C1
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
BaseCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllInCapitalCost(FullConversion) $(000)
GasPipelinefromLNGstoragefacilitytoCentralPlant $(000)
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000)
AllInCapitalCost(PartialConversion) $(000) BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 20.49 21.07 21.69 Calc
Appendix C2
HIGH CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
HIGHCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 29.05 29.98 30.74 31.34 31.87 32.64 33.39 34.08 35.06 35.98 36.89 37.84 38.76 39.67 40.58 41.48 42.40 43.64
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 18.07 18.33 18.34 18.61 18.86 19.25 19.65 20.09 20.54 20.99 21.49 21.97 22.53 23.08 23.66 24.23 24.81 25.42
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 22.75 24.48 24.48 25.26 26.01 26.93 27.88 28.82 29.97 31.13 32.32 33.57 34.85 36.16 37.52 38.91 40.37 42.13
HIGHCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.17 20.35 22.02 22.76 23.45 24.31 25.32 26.25 27.36 28.42 29.47 30.80 32.07 33.39 34.70 37.56 39.17 40.79
FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_High_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19
Duty $/mmBtu 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.31 1.38 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.07
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 13.15 13.50 13.93 14.42 14.84 15.26 15.65 16.05 16.46 16.87 17.29 17.75 18.24 18.76 19.24 19.72
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162017)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19
Duty $/mmBtu 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.31 1.38 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.07
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
WACC % 9.75%
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 12.78 13.11 13.53 14.00 14.40 14.71 14.97 15.25 15.54 15.82 16.10 16.44 16.79 17.16 17.51 17.84
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 18.09 18.48 19.21 20.00 20.75 21.75 22.56 23.34 24.20 24.88 25.51 26.38 27.28 28.31 29.17 29.82
HIGHCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
WACC % 9.75%
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.26 13.86 14.43 15.23 15.84 16.42 17.07 17.54 17.95 18.61 19.29 20.08 20.71 21.12
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
HIGHCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.45 1.56 1.63 1.67
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
WACC % 9.75%
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000) (9,800)
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.08 14.69 15.26 16.07 16.69 17.28 17.93 18.40 18.82 19.49 20.17 20.97 21.60 22.02
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
HIGHCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 44.70 45.44 46.52 EIAAEO EIAAEO
EIAAEOREFERENCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 26.05 26.70 27.35 EIAAEO EIAAEO
Adders
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 43.80 45.27 47.08 Calc
HIGHCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
Adders
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 42.62 44.28 46.23 Calc
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
HIGHCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
AllIn $/mmBtu 20.22 20.78 21.34 Calc
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
HIGHCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162017)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.19 18.59 19.00 Calc
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
HIGHCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
AllIn $/mmBtu 30.67 31.51 32.47 Calc
HIGHCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 21.73 22.32 23.03 Calc
Appendix C2
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
HIGHCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000)
AllIn $/mmBtu 22.63 23.22 23.93 Calc
Appendix C3
LOW CASE FUEL FORECAST

Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCaseFuelPriceProjections(IncludesFuelImportDuty)
LOWCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 13.89 13.99 14.12 14.45 14.81 15.07 15.40 15.63 15.89 16.12 16.36 16.59 16.66 16.78 16.82 16.95 17.00 17.14
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 5.39 5.51 5.63 5.76 5.89 6.02 6.16 6.30 6.44 6.58 6.73 6.88 7.04 7.20 7.36 7.53 7.69 7.87
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
AllIn $/mmBtu 15.30 16.23 16.25 16.70 17.19 17.64 18.14 18.59 19.07 19.55 20.06 20.56 20.96 21.41 21.80 22.28 22.70 23.22
LOWCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
Adders
Throughput $/bbl 6.82 6.97 7.13 7.29 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.71 8.91 9.11 9.31 9.52 9.74 9.96
Duty $/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80 31.80
Duty $/mmBtu 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
UnescoTax $/bbl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
AllIn $/mmBtu 11.50 12.35 13.01 13.40 13.83 14.22 14.63 14.99 15.39 15.77 16.16 16.59 16.91 17.26 17.59 17.96 18.29 18.68
FuelPricesAnalysis_detail_20160629_Low_WithDuty_Redacted
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
Duty $/mmBtu 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.50
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 11.36 11.73 12.27 12.46 12.76 13.09 13.42 13.76 14.12 14.50 14.83 15.14 15.47 15.84 16.21 16.60
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/USgal 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
Duty $/mmBtu 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.50
UnescoTax $/USgal 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095 0.0095
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
WACC % 9.75%
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 10.98 11.34 11.87 12.04 12.32 12.54 12.74 12.96 13.20 13.45 13.64 13.82 14.02 14.24 14.48 14.72
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 3.25 3.43 3.24 3.16 3.12 3.24 3.26 3.33 3.35 3.41 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.66 3.67 3.73 3.84 3.94
Adders
Freight $/mmBtu 3.07 3.14 3.21 3.28 3.35 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.92 4.01 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.38 4.48
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 17.51 17.65 18.01 18.51 18.94 19.43 19.88 20.38 20.88 21.44 22.03 22.51 23.03 23.61 24.25 24.90
LOWCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
WACC % 9.75%
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.03 12.34 12.58 12.87 13.12 13.42 13.72 14.06 14.44 14.70 14.99 15.34 15.75 16.16
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
LOWCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Shipping $/mmBtu 5.88 6.01 6.15 6.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.87 7.02 7.18 7.34 7.51 7.68 7.85 8.03 8.21 8.39 8.58
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% 22.25%
Duty $/mmBtu 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77
UnescoTax $/liter 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
UnescoTax $/mmBtu 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
WACC % 9.75%
3
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m tank $(000) (9,800)
AllIn $/mmBtu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.85 13.17 13.41 13.71 13.97 14.27 14.58 14.93 15.31 15.58 15.87 16.23 16.64 17.06
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
LOWCase:FuelOil#2(LFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
EIAAEOLOWOILPriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 17.21 17.30 17.43 EIAAEO EIAAEO
Adders
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 23.68 24.17 24.72 Calc
LOWCase:FuelOil#6(HFONYMEXNearTerm)
Commodity
Adders
Duty $/bbl 31.80 31.80 31.80 Calc
AllIn $/mmBtu 18.95 19.27 19.78 Calc
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
LOWCase:LPGISO(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity(Mt.B)
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
AllIn $/mmBtu 17.00 17.41 17.83 Calc
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
LOWCase:LPGBulk(NYMEX20162018)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 14.97 15.22 15.49 Calc
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
LOWCase:LNGISO(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
EIAAEOHIGHRESOURCE PriceForecast(Real2013$) $/mmBtu 4.06 4.16 4.21 EIAAEO EIAAEO
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
AllIn $/mmBtu 25.59 26.27 26.92 Calc
LOWCase:LNGBulk(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
AllIn $/mmBtu 16.60 17.04 17.44 Calc
Appendix C3
BELCOIRP2016
Escalation
LOWCase:LNGBulkPartialConversion(NYMEXHenryHubNearTerm20162019)
Commodity
Adders
Duty % 22.25% 22.25% 22.25% BELCO Flat
WACC % BELCO
Replace20,000m3capacitytankwith10,000m3tank $(000)
AllIn $/mmBtu 17.51 17.94 18.34 Calc
Appendix D
DETAILED LEVELIZED COST OF EENERGY AND
SCENARIO RESULTS
Appendix D1
LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY

Appendix D1
SummaryofLCOEAnalysis
CHP/CCHP(C.F.60%100%) 152 268
DistributedSolarThermal 396 396
DistributedPVResidential(C.F.15%20%) 307 409
DistributedPVCommercial(C.F.15%20%) 377 503
Biomass(C.F.60%100%) 323 388
Wind(C.F.30%35%) 269 314
UtilityScalePV(C.F.15%25%) 256 432
RICEHFO(C.F.60%100%) 202 218
RICEDF(C.F.60%100%) 178 197
RICENG(C.F.60%100%) 155 188
CCLFO(C.F.60%100%) 218 239
CCNG(C.F.60%100%) 174 196
CCLPG(C.F.60%100%) 153 174
CTLFO(C.F.15%30%) 300 354
CTNG(C.F.15%30%) 208 297
CTLPG(C.F.15%30%) 186 297
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

$/MWh
Page 1 of 2
Appendix D1
SummaryofLCOEAnalysis(withoutDutiesandTaxes)
CHP/CCHP(C.F.60%100%) 142 257
DistributedSolarThermal 396 396
DistributedPVResidential(C.F.15%20%) 307 409
DistributedPVCommercial(C.F.15%20%) 377 503
Biomass(C.F.60%100%) 323 388
Wind(C.F.30%35%) 269 314
UtilityScalePV(C.F.15%25%) 256 432
RICEHFO(C.F.60%100%) 160 176
RICEDF(C.F.60%100%) 169 188
RICENG(C.F.60%100%) 147 179
CCLFO(C.F.60%100%) 173 194
CCNG(C.F.60%100%) 165 186
CCLPG(C.F.60%100%) 140 161
CTLFO(C.F.15%30%) 239 293
CTNG(C.F.15%30%) 196 285
CTLPG(C.F.15%30%) 169 280
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

$/MWh
Page 2 of 2
Appendix D2
CASE UNIT MATRIX

BELCO2016IRP Appendix D2
CaseUnitMatrix
UnitMatrix
Case5
BusinessAsUsual Case6
Case1 Case2 Case4 (FuelOil) PracticalLPGwith Case7 Case8
BusinessAsUsual EnergyPolicy Case3 PracticalLNGwith withRenewablesand OptimizedRenewables PartialLNGwith PartialLPGwith
Option Fuel Unit (FuelOil) AspirationalMix PreliminaryLeastCost RenewablesandDSM DSM andDSM RenewablesandDSM RenewablesandDSM
ExistE1 OilH(HFO) E1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE2 OilH(HFO) E2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE3 OilH(HFO) E3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE4 OilH(HFO) E4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE5 OilH(HFO) E5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE6 OilH(HFO) E6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE7 OilH(HFO) E7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistE8 OilH(HFO) E8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD3 OilL(LFO) D3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD8 OilL(LFO) D8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD10 OilL(LFO) D10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ExistD14 OilL(LFO) D14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistD15 OilL(LFO) D15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT6 OilL(LFO) GT6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT3E OilL(LFO) GT3E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistGT3F OilL(LFO) GT3F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ExistTB Waste 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS1a OilH(HFO) ICMSDNew1unit 1 1
PS1b OilH(HFO) ICMSDNew1unit 1 1
PS1c NG ICMSDNew1unit 1 1 1
PS2a OilL(LFO) GTNew 1 1
PS2c LPGBulkDelivered GTNew 1 1 1
PS2d NG GTNew 1 1 1
PS3a OilL(LFO) CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1
PS3b LPGBulk CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS3d LPGBulkDelivered CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS3e NG CC(1x1)New1unit 1 1 1
PS12 NG ICRecipNew4units 1 1 1
PS4a SOL SLUtility5MWac
PS4c SOL SLUtility20MWac 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS4d SOL SLUtility5MWac(PPA) 1 1 1 1 1
PS5 WND WT 1
PS6a OTH BYSpinResBackup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS6b OTH BYRenewSupport 1 1 1 1 1 1
PS7aa NG E5ICMSDRefuel 1 1
PS7ab NG E6ICMSDRefuel 1 1
PS7ac NG E7ICMSDRefuel 1 1
PS7ad NG E8ICMSDRefuel 1 1
PS7ba LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT5GTRefuel
PS7bb LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT6GTRefuel
PS7bc LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT7GTRefuel
PS7bd LPGBulkw/Pipeline GT8GTRefuel
PS7ca LPGBulkDelivered GT5GTRefuel 1
PS7cb LPGBulkDelivered GT6GTRefuel 1
PS7cc LPGBulkDelivered GT7GTRefuel 1
PS7cd LPGBulkDelivered GT8GTRefuel 1
PS7da NG GT5GTRefuel 1 1
PS7db NG GT6GTRefuel 1 1
PS7dc NG GT7GTRefuel 1 1
PS7dd NG GT8GTRefuel 1 1
DSM1a SLDistElec SLDistElecRes
DSM1b SLDistElec SLDistElecCom 1
DSM2b LPGBulk ICCCHP 1
DSM2d LNGBulk ICCHP 1
DSM3a SLDistH2O SLDistH2O 1
EnergyEfficiencyand
DSMEE/EC(0.5%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
EnergyConservation
EnergyEfficiencyand
DSMEE/EC(1.0%)
EnergyConservation
Notes:
1 Cellshighlightedinyellowreflectanoption"forcedin"totheresourcestack.
2 CasesincludingthePS7options(the"RefuelingOptions"):Theexistingunitsbeingconverted,orrefueled,aretoretirethedaybeforetheconversiontakesplace.
3 Case2willbedesignedtomeettheAspirationalMixrequirementsasdefinedinthetablebelow.TheFutureRenewableenergy(Undefined)resourcewillbemodeled
equivalentincosttoanaturalgasoption.
P:\ESO\1790ORL\005759BermudaElectric\2016IRP\DA\PROMOD\Assumptions\
PROMODAssumptions_20160601 Leidos ,6/3/2016

Appendix D3
CASE 1 RESULTS

AppendixD3 Case1Results
BELCO - Annual Power Supply Costs by Component

250,000 Case 1
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Debt Service - Generation Debt Service - T & D
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure
Fuel - Existing Fuel - New
800 BELCO - Annual Energy Supply by Component

Case 1
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO Tynes Bay - WTE System Load (net of DSM)
BELCOPromodCase1 Page1of19
AppendixD3Case1Results
240 BELCO - Annual Capacity Supply by Component

220 Case 1
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Existing Thermal New Thermal Existing WTE
New Renewables Peak (net of DSM) Reserves
120 BELCO - Annual Supply Side Capacity Additions

Case 1
100
80
(MW)
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Recip. MSD GT CC (1x1)
Utility Solar Wind Generic Renewable
Battery Refuel: E5 - E8 Recip. MSD Refuel: GT5 - GT8
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
AMORTIZED CAPITAL COSTS
Debt Service - Generation $000 11,248 - 5,130 7,753 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 12,126 14,058 14,058 14,058 14,058 14,058 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985 19,985
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Early Retirement Depreciation Cost $000 68 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 44,099 82,964 64,943 45,122 32,896 35,384 36,531 38,277 39,702 41,500 36,584 37,989 39,599 41,445 43,801 23,246 23,965 25,281 26,277 27,430 28,367
Fuel - New $000 63,237 - 20,673 42,308 57,476 59,327 61,865 63,536 66,102 68,238 76,560 79,721 82,297 86,143 87,983 120,040 125,368 130,212 136,078 140,503 144,409
Variable O&M - Existing $000 3,659 7,391 5,765 3,921 2,754 2,809 2,864 2,974 3,040 3,148 3,047 3,110 3,224 3,282 3,465 1,774 1,808 1,872 1,911 1,962 2,059
Variable O&M - New $000 4,943 - 1,957 3,968 5,204 5,286 5,417 5,536 5,669 5,791 5,989 6,154 6,300 6,434 6,594 7,678 7,863 8,044 8,232 8,606 8,983
Fixed O&M - Existing $000 1,868 3,027 2,628 2,102 1,741 1,685 1,723 1,761 1,801 1,842 1,532 1,567 1,602 1,638 1,675 952 974 995 1,018 1,041 1,064
Fixed O&M - New $000 1,533 - 411 838 1,453 1,486 1,519 1,554 1,588 1,624 2,017 2,062 2,108 2,156 2,204 2,998 3,065 3,134 3,205 3,277 3,351
Renewable $000 5,954 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL COSTS $000 144,708 125,790 121,653 126,882 133,712 137,690 127,363 131,348 135,915 140,425 146,252 151,449 156,343 162,640 167,638 184,923 191,725 198,621 206,257 212,834 218,787
$/MWh 213.6 189.2 182.7 190.0 199.6 204.9 189.0 194.3 200.5 206.5 214.4 221.4 227.8 236.3 242.8 267.1 276.1 285.1 295.2 303.7 311.3
ANNUAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

Nominal Dollars ($000)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 24,693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 24,693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - 25,249 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - 25,817 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36,256 - - - - -
PS-2a_1 - - - 16,282 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 18,608 - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,797 - - - - -
Battery
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Distributed Solar Water Heating - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Energy Efficiency - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 28,055 64,972 41,339 57,132 14,523 - - - - 18,608 - - - - 57,054 - - - - -
SYSTEM GENERATION SUMMARY
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 578 595 622 614 609 609 612 612 615 623 624 628 625 634 586 586 588 588 599 614
LFO GWH 63 47 23 32 39 41 40 42 42 36 37 34 40 32 83 84 85 87 78 65
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
GENERATION MIX (% OF TOTAL)

HFO % 87% 89% 93% 92% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 91% 92% 91% 92% 85% 84% 84% 84% 86% 87%
LFO % 10% 7% 3% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 9%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUMMARY
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
Existing Thermal GWH 641 478 319 222 225 225 228 228 231 210 210 212 212 218 110 110 111 111 111 113
New Thermal GWH - 164 325 424 423 426 424 426 425 449 451 450 453 449 559 561 562 564 566 566
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
New Renewables GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL ENERGY 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
System Load GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
LOLH HOURS 22 - - - 1 3 - - - 5 - 1 - 10 - 4 2 12 - -
Dump Energy GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emergency Energy GWH 0.2 - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.1 - -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 757 768 796 781 776 776 779 780 783 792 794 799 795 807 743 744 745 745 760 779
LFO BBL (000) 113 82 48 67 85 90 88 92 91 78 80 75 87 71 177 180 182 186 167 138
LNG GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EMISSIONS / RPS
Energy from Renewables % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
CO2 TONS (000) 466 457 457 458 463 465 466 468 470 469 471 471 475 474 488 490 491 493 492 489
CO2 Intensity LBS/MWH 1,400 1,373 1,369 1,367 1,379 1,381 1,380 1,382 1,382 1,375 1,376 1,373 1,379 1,372 1,409 1,410 1,411 1,412 1,405 1,392
NOX TONS (000) 26 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 22 23 23 23 23 22
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY
Existing Thermal MW 152 129 108 88 84 84 84 84 84 71 71 71 71 71 42 42 42 42 42 42
New Thermal MW - 28 42 70 70 70 70 70 70 85 85 85 85 85 113 113 113 113 113 113
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
New Renewables MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 161 154 163 159 159 159 159 159 160 160 160 160 160 159 159 159 159 159 159
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peak (net of DSM) MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7
Total Capacity Requirements MW 148 148 149 149 150 150 150 151 151 151 152 152 152 153 153 153 154 154 154 155
Surplus/(Deficiency) MW 8.6 12.9 5.5 13.9 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.1 7.7 8.7 8.3 8.0 7.7 7.3 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.3
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Unit Fuel
PS-1a_1 - 10,342 14,380 14,633 15,055 15,520 16,008 16,736 17,164 17,822 18,419 19,138 19,844 20,603 21,373 22,243 23,014 24,001 24,931 26,231
PS-1a_2 - 10,332 13,864 13,581 13,918 14,456 14,845 15,557 16,075 16,761 17,313 18,036 18,526 19,415 19,852 20,725 21,580 22,415 24,518 26,117
PS-1a_3 - - 14,064 14,122 14,591 14,996 15,479 15,976 16,500 17,261 18,264 18,687 19,667 20,203 20,948 21,895 22,657 23,517 24,818 25,945
PS-1a_4 - - - 13,579 13,801 14,428 15,011 15,295 15,956 16,948 17,652 18,415 18,915 19,831 20,181 21,210 21,799 22,627 23,350 24,124
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,717 12,892 13,665 14,396 16,087 18,181
PS-2a_1 - - - 1,562 1,962 2,465 2,194 2,538 2,542 2,448 3,223 2,382 3,674 2,562 5,821 7,031 6,622 6,778 4,603 3,174
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 5,320 4,851 5,639 5,517 5,369 6,781 6,962 7,744 7,435 6,535 6,447
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,367 12,411 13,131 14,908 15,660 14,190
New Thermal Unit Variable O&M

PS-1a_1 - 979 1,350 1,364 1,390 1,418 1,446 1,495 1,515 1,553 1,583 1,625 1,661 1,699 1,734 1,776 1,810 1,856 1,895 1,962
PS-1a_2 - 978 1,300 1,263 1,281 1,317 1,338 1,386 1,415 1,458 1,485 1,528 1,546 1,597 1,606 1,650 1,693 1,729 1,863 1,953
PS-1a_3 - - 1,319 1,315 1,346 1,368 1,398 1,425 1,456 1,504 1,570 1,586 1,646 1,665 1,699 1,747 1,782 1,818 1,887 1,940
PS-1a_4 - - - 1,263 1,270 1,314 1,354 1,362 1,405 1,474 1,516 1,562 1,580 1,633 1,635 1,690 1,712 1,746 1,771 1,799
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,003 1,001 1,046 1,084 1,190 1,328
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
New Thermal Units Fixed O&M
PS-1a_1 - 205 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_2 - 205 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_3 - - 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_4 - - - 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-2a_1 - - - 311 318 326 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 398 407 416 425 435 444
New Thermal Units Debt Service

PS-1a_1 - 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565
PS-1a_2 - 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565
PS-1a_3 - - 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623
PS-1a_4 - - - 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766
PS-2a_1 - - - 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Existing Thermal Fuel
D10 2,046 1,688 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,303 1,050 667 984 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,774 1,496 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 1,844 1,583 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,991 2,092 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,775 2,212 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,267 4,138 3,079 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,051 4,171 3,510 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 10,186 8,750 6,171 5,794 5,899 6,197 6,503 6,523 7,043 7,136 7,359 7,686 8,102 8,854 - - - - - -
E6 11,506 10,342 6,515 4,446 4,857 4,849 5,130 5,482 5,702 6,094 6,255 6,683 6,743 7,509 - - - - - -
E7 12,338 12,794 11,187 9,075 9,071 9,415 9,892 10,178 10,682 11,243 11,381 12,290 12,360 13,464 10,436 10,791 11,472 11,811 12,519 14,162
E8 12,182 12,007 9,539 7,857 8,011 8,163 8,529 8,818 9,125 9,749 10,298 10,567 10,916 11,387 10,404 10,865 11,204 11,722 12,104 12,628
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,420 1,371 2,381 3,422 5,063 4,780 5,392 5,621 6,007 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 699 444 723 391 747 861 779 1,009 851 818 828 790 924 893 863 830 880 823 778 355
GT7 909 435 746 470 920 1,149 1,094 1,070 1,065 854 1,044 846 1,269 936 807 830 907 1,002 983 634
GT8 673 370 603 457 816 1,116 957 1,003 1,026 690 823 737 1,132 757 734 650 819 920 1,046 588
Existing Thermal Variable O&M

D10 157 132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 94 78 49 72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 125 107 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 143 125 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 634 158 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 611 165 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 397 368 273 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 474 370 308 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 991 807 559 521 526 546 568 563 600 600 611 630 655 705 - - - - - -
E6 1,130 967 597 402 434 429 449 474 487 515 522 550 547 600 - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,235 1,068 855 846 868 903 919 953 991 989 1,056 1,046 1,124 846 860 902 912 949 1,058
E8 1,236 1,165 915 744 751 757 783 800 818 864 901 912 929 955 854 878 892 917 931 955
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 79 46 79 114 167 157 176 181 192 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 24 15 25 13 26 29 26 34 28 27 27 25 29 28 27 25 27 24 23 10
GT7 31 15 26 16 31 39 37 36 35 28 34 27 40 29 25 25 27 30 29 18
GT8 23 13 21 16 28 38 32 34 34 23 27 24 36 24 23 20 25 27 31 17
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Existing Thermal Fixed O&M
D10 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
Early Retirement Depreciation Costs

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
Renewable Units Debt Service
T&D Upgrade Debt Service

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 79.6 90.3 89.0 88.9 88.7 88.5 89.2 88.7 88.9 88.6 88.7 88.9 88.9 88.8 88.7 88.7 88.9 88.8 89.6
PS-1a_2 - 79.5 86.9 82.3 81.9 82.4 81.9 82.7 82.8 83.4 83.1 83.4 82.8 83.6 82.2 82.4 82.9 82.8 87.3 89.2
PS-1a_3 - - 88.2 85.8 86.1 85.6 85.5 85.0 85.2 86.0 87.8 86.5 88.1 87.1 87.0 87.2 87.2 87.0 88.4 88.6
PS-1a_4 - - - 82.4 81.2 82.2 82.8 81.3 82.2 84.4 84.8 85.2 84.6 85.5 83.7 84.4 83.8 83.6 82.9 82.2
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.1 52.6 53.9 54.6 58.7 63.9
PS-2a_1 - - - 5.4 6.6 8.0 6.9 7.8 7.6 7.1 9.0 6.4 9.6 6.5 14.1 16.5 15.0 14.9 9.7 6.4
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 15.3 13.5 15.2 14.4 13.5 16.5 16.3 17.6 16.3 13.8 13.1
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.1 29.1 29.8 32.6 33.1 28.8
D10 21.3 17.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 19.9 16.0 9.9 14.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 16.9 14.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 19.3 16.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.3 43.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 61.2 49.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 37.4 33.9 24.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 47.4 36.2 29.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 65.8 52.5 35.6 32.3 32.0 32.5 33.0 31.9 33.4 32.7 32.5 32.7 33.3 35.1 - - - - - -
E6 75.1 62.9 37.9 24.9 26.4 25.5 26.1 26.9 27.1 28.0 27.7 28.5 27.8 29.8 - - - - - -
E7 82.7 80.3 67.9 53.0 51.4 51.6 52.5 52.1 53.0 53.9 52.7 54.8 53.2 56.0 41.2 40.8 42.0 41.6 42.3 45.9
E8 82.1 75.7 58.1 46.1 45.6 45.0 45.5 45.3 45.5 47.0 47.9 47.3 47.2 47.5 41.6 41.6 41.5 41.7 41.4 41.5
GT5 9.7 5.5 9.3 13.0 18.8 17.2 18.9 19.0 19.8 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 7.1 4.5 7.2 3.8 7.0 7.9 6.9 8.6 7.1 6.6 6.5 5.9 6.7 6.3 5.9 5.4 5.6 5.0 4.6 2.0
GT7 9.2 4.4 7.4 4.5 8.6 10.5 9.7 9.2 8.9 6.9 8.1 6.4 9.2 6.6 5.5 5.4 5.8 6.1 5.8 3.6
GT8 6.8 3.8 6.0 4.4 7.7 10.2 8.5 8.6 8.5 5.6 6.4 5.5 8.3 5.3 5.0 4.3 5.2 5.6 6.2 3.3
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 81.9 110.7 109.4 109.0 108.8 108.6 109.7 108.7 109.0 108.7 109.1 109.0 109.1 108.9 109.0 108.7 109.0 108.9 110.2
PS-1a_2 - 81.8 106.6 101.3 100.5 101.0 100.4 101.7 101.6 102.3 102.0 102.6 101.5 102.6 100.9 101.3 101.7 101.5 107.0 109.7
PS-1a_3 - - 108.2 105.5 105.5 104.9 104.8 104.6 104.4 105.5 107.7 106.4 108.0 106.9 106.7 107.3 107.0 106.7 108.4 109.0
PS-1a_4 - - - 101.3 99.6 100.8 101.6 100.0 100.8 103.5 104.0 104.8 103.8 104.8 102.7 103.8 102.8 102.5 101.7 101.1
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63.0 61.5 62.8 63.6 68.4 74.7
PS-2a_1 - - - 6.8 8.3 10.1 8.8 9.8 9.5 8.9 11.3 8.1 12.1 8.1 17.8 20.9 19.0 18.8 12.3 8.1
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 19.3 17.1 19.2 18.2 17.1 20.8 20.6 22.2 20.5 17.4 16.6
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.0 36.8 37.6 41.2 41.7 36.4
D10 13.0 10.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 7.8 6.3 3.9 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 10.4 8.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 11.9 10.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.3 15.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 60.0 16.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 33.1 30.0 21.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 39.5 30.1 24.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 82.5 65.7 44.6 40.6 40.1 40.7 41.3 40.1 41.8 40.9 40.7 41.1 41.7 44.0 - - - - - -
E6 94.1 78.7 47.5 31.3 33.0 31.9 32.7 33.8 33.9 35.0 34.7 35.8 34.8 37.4 - - - - - -
E7 103.6 100.6 85.1 66.6 64.4 64.7 65.8 65.4 66.4 67.6 66.0 68.8 66.7 70.1 51.6 51.3 52.6 52.1 53.0 57.7
E8 102.8 94.8 72.8 57.9 57.2 56.3 57.0 56.9 57.0 58.8 60.0 59.4 59.2 59.5 52.1 52.3 52.0 52.3 51.9 52.1
GT5 11.1 6.3 10.6 14.9 21.4 19.6 21.5 21.7 22.5 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.8 1.8 2.8 1.5 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.8
GT7 3.6 1.7 2.9 1.8 3.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.5 2.7 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.4
GT8 2.7 1.5 2.4 1.7 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.3
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_2 - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_3 - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_4 - - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-2a_1 - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7
FUEL CONSUMPTION (GBTU)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 647 875 865 862 860 858 867 860 862 859 862 862 862 861 862 860 862 861 871
PS-1a_2 - 646 843 803 797 801 796 806 805 811 808 813 805 813 800 803 806 805 847 867
PS-1a_3 - - 855 835 835 831 830 828 827 835 852 842 854 845 844 848 846 844 857 862
PS-1a_4 - - - 803 790 799 805 793 799 820 824 830 822 830 813 822 814 812 806 801
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 512 500 511 517 556 604
PS-2a_1 - - - 83 101 123 107 120 116 108 138 99 147 99 217 254 231 228 149 99
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 235 208 234 221 208 253 251 270 250 212 202
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 462 448 458 501 508 444
D10 114 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 73 58 36 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 99 83 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 103 88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 533 131 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 519 138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 285 259 187 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 337 261 213 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 680 547 375 343 338 343 349 338 353 345 344 346 352 371 - - - - - -
E6 768 647 396 263 278 269 275 284 286 295 292 301 293 314 - - - - - -
E7 823 800 680 536 519 522 530 528 535 544 531 554 537 563 420 418 429 424 432 470
E8 813 751 580 464 459 452 457 457 457 471 481 476 474 477 419 421 419 421 418 419
GT5 135 76 129 182 261 239 262 265 275 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 39 25 39 21 38 43 38 48 39 36 35 33 37 35 32 30 31 28 25 11
GT7 51 24 41 25 47 58 53 50 49 38 45 35 51 36 30 30 32 34 32 20
GT8 37 21 33 24 42 56 47 47 47 31 35 31 45 29 27 23 29 31 34 18
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
AVERAGE HEAT RATE (MMBTU/MWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.90
PS-1a_2 - 7.90 7.91 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.93 7.92 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.91 7.90
PS-1a_3 - - 7.91 7.92 7.91 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
PS-1a_4 - - - 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.93 7.93
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.13 8.13 8.13 8.12 8.12 8.09
PS-2a_1 - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.17 12.17 12.15 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.16 12.14 12.17 12.17
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.16 12.17 12.17
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17
D10 8.75 8.75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.27 9.27 9.27 9.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.54 9.54 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.67 8.67 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.61 8.63 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.54 8.66 8.71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.24 8.33 8.42 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.21 8.34 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.41 8.41 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 8.00 8.05 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.04 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.14 8.16 8.15
E8 7.90 7.92 7.97 8.02 8.02 8.03 8.02 8.03 8.02 8.02 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
UNIT STARTS PER YEAR
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 10 21 14 18 20 16 16 19 10 19 16 12 13 21 11 9 21 8 18
PS-1a_2 - 10 20 11 11 17 25 12 22 12 16 17 11 10 21 15 18 13 15 16
PS-1a_3 - - 21 14 11 18 9 9 11 11 20 14 16 20 11 14 16 18 12 15
PS-1a_4 - - - 24 12 25 18 22 21 17 10 19 9 17 8 15 16 15 12 14
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 219 207 228 209 21 22
PS-2a_1 - - - 105 82 112 101 97 93 97 112 97 100 92 239 240 246 254 62 54
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 250 246 268 245 229 203 212 228 230 103 96
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 332 327 343 346 95 93
D10 310 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 287 269 169 202 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 339 289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 280 289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 20 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 262 225 299 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 275 333 431 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 93 91 194 333 292 313 296 296 301 317 311 327 298 333 - - - - - -
E6 43 60 204 258 270 271 278 268 261 223 252 243 242 266 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 37 123 125 117 112 114 121 125 144 121 130 133 126 122 112 122 47 43
E8 37 42 34 36 41 35 33 31 34 38 28 37 33 36 38 33 32 39 39 37
GT5 129 87 129 194 252 238 258 241 273 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 90 73 100 44 80 89 78 86 78 88 97 81 88 93 86 88 81 79 35 29
GT7 105 61 106 50 86 105 101 99 91 92 111 93 114 106 101 88 90 94 30 32
GT8 70 56 94 51 90 101 93 88 98 81 99 87 109 73 74 72 73 85 46 35
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
UNIT RUN HOURS PER YEAR
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 5,853 7,926 7,950 7,929 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_2 - 5,853 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_3 - - 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,857 7,903 8,017 7,950 7,921 7,920 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_4 - - - 7,896 7,917 7,898 7,918 7,899 7,901 7,915 7,926 7,925 7,926 7,919 7,857 8,006 7,901 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,737 6,632 6,754 6,723 7,247 7,244
PS-2a_1 - - - 724 883 1,077 931 1,045 1,015 944 1,206 861 1,278 865 1,898 2,212 2,011 1,975 1,301 867
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - 2,052 1,816 2,037 1,926 1,814 2,212 2,192 2,356 2,175 1,851 1,761
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,034 3,915 3,997 4,372 4,435 3,876
D10 3,220 2,673 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 2,603 2,103 1,301 1,876 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 2,568 2,177 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,951 2,529 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 1,910 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,488 2,002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 6,016 5,936 4,327 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,193 5,690 4,890 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,558 7,528 6,258 5,794 5,721 5,817 5,904 5,714 5,974 5,832 5,810 5,866 5,912 6,249 - - - - - -
E6 7,258 7,155 5,823 4,415 4,686 4,530 4,638 4,773 4,819 4,920 4,855 4,992 4,873 5,232 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,249 7,249 6,858 6,812 6,861 6,848 6,860 6,863 6,806 6,768 6,917 6,765 6,842 6,849 6,816 6,915 6,822 7,249 7,692
E8 7,412 7,413 7,413 7,438 7,413 7,414 7,414 7,436 7,412 7,408 7,414 7,438 7,414 7,407 7,414 7,438 7,399 7,414 7,414 7,431
GT5 851 482 817 1,146 1,648 1,511 1,654 1,672 1,733 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 621 394 627 331 614 688 604 758 620 577 566 522 590 551 513 478 489 441 402 177
GT7 808 386 647 398 756 918 848 804 776 603 713 559 810 577 480 478 504 537 508 316
GT8 598 329 523 387 671 891 742 754 748 487 562 487 723 467 437 374 455 493 541 293
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
VARIABLE O&M ($/MWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 11.96 12.19 12.46 12.75 13.03 13.32 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.56 14.89 15.23 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_2 - 11.96 12.19 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.56 14.89 15.23 15.58 15.92 16.28 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_3 - - 12.20 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_4 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.23 15.57 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.40 17.79
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D10 12.03 12.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.03 12.29 12.57 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.03 12.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 10.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.18 10.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.29 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.27 12.55 12.84 13.13 13.42 13.73 14.03 14.34 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.28 12.57 12.85 13.14 13.43 13.73 14.04 14.36 14.68 15.01 15.35 15.70 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.27 12.55 12.84 13.12 13.43 13.72 14.03 14.35 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 16.40 16.77 17.14 17.52 17.93 18.33
E8 12.02 12.28 12.57 12.85 13.14 13.44 13.74 14.05 14.36 14.68 15.02 15.35 15.70 16.05 16.41 16.78 17.16 17.54 17.93 18.34
GT5 7.16 7.32 7.48 7.64 7.81 7.99 8.16 8.35 8.53 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.47 8.63 8.85 9.03 9.24 9.44 9.65 9.88 10.11 10.32 10.54 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.53 11.78 12.07 12.32 12.56 12.85
GT7 8.47 8.65 8.84 9.04 9.25 9.44 9.64 9.88 10.10 10.33 10.55 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.53 11.80 12.07 12.32 12.58 12.86
GT8 8.47 8.65 8.84 9.04 9.25 9.44 9.65 9.88 10.10 10.34 10.55 10.79 11.03 11.26 11.52 11.79 12.05 12.33 12.57 12.85
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D4
CASE 2 RESULTS


250,000 Case 2
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 2
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017
HFO
2019 2021 2023LFO 2025 2027 2029 2031
LNG
2033 2035
Tynes Bay - WTE Utility PV Wind
Future Renewables Commercial PV Distributed Solar Water Heating
Energy Efficiency System Load (net of DSM)

220 Case 2
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 2
200
150
(MW)
100
50
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - Generation $000 37,193 1,270 14,978 26,295 64,120 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 43,191 45,212 45,212 45,212 45,212 45,212 50,496 50,496 50,496 50,496
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 8,575 - 2,704 5,468 8,295 11,185 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379 11,379
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 18,250 83,498 65,278 36,731 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel - New $000 51,457 - 22,927 43,207 63,459 60,953 62,137 63,897 65,201 58,506 60,182 61,014 62,112 63,287 64,182 66,252 68,012 71,288 73,675 73,447 74,882
Variable O&M - Existing $000 1,544 7,321 5,198 3,155 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Variable O&M - New $000 5,178 - 2,172 4,046 6,678 6,449 6,581 6,714 6,858 6,176 6,299 6,424 6,508 6,640 6,786 6,923 7,052 5,643 5,710 5,578 5,719
Fixed O&M - Existing $000 703 3,027 2,176 2,010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fixed O&M - New $000 2,394 - 480 838 2,633 2,692 2,752 2,814 2,878 2,942 3,009 3,076 3,167 3,238 3,311 3,386 3,462 4,979 5,091 5,206 5,323
Renewable $000 8,738 4,167 4,602 5,660 8,594 8,817 9,070 9,336 9,637 9,908 10,216 10,539 10,906 11,235 11,609 12,002 12,448 12,848 13,303 13,780 14,322
DSM $000 3,160 131 325 507 812 1,049 1,505 1,806 2,395 2,777 3,552 4,031 5,037 5,633 6,924 7,660 9,303 10,208 12,281 13,389 15,990
TOTAL COSTS $000 145,389 127,654 136,609 144,378 169,993 148,858 136,616 139,138 141,539 134,880 137,828 139,655 144,321 146,625 149,403 152,815 156,868 166,841 171,935 173,276 178,111
$/MWh 214.7 192.0 205.2 216.2 253.7 221.5 202.7 205.8 208.8 198.3 202.1 204.1 210.3 213.0 216.4 220.7 225.9 239.5 246.1 247.3 253.4

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_4 - - - 28,385 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 19,454 - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50,865 - - -
PS-7aa - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ad - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7da - - - 2,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dc - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dd - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-5 - - - 176,338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - 1,725 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - 1,710 1,749 1,788 1,829 1,870 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Distributed Solar Water Heating - 24,318 24,865 25,424 25,996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Energy Efficiency 131 316 489 784 1,013 1,465 1,765 2,354 2,736 3,511 3,990 4,997 5,592 6,883 7,619 9,263 10,167 12,241 13,348 15,949
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 28,186 185,023 193,365 268,680 43,360 3,334 1,765 2,354 2,736 3,511 3,990 24,451 5,592 6,883 7,619 9,263 61,033 12,241 13,348 15,949
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 563 532 572 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO GWH 75 94 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GWH - - - 545 512 510 510 508 446 444 443 442 441 440 438 436 437 436 418 416
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Wind GWH - - - 32 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
Future Renewables GWH - - - - - - - - 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 82 82
Distributed Solar Water Heating GWH - 3 6 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Energy Efficiency GWH 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Commercial PV GWH - 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 677 679 681 683 685 687 689 691 694 695 699 701 706 708

HFO % 85% 80% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LFO % 11% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LNG (includes CHP) % 0% 0% 0% 81% 76% 76% 75% 75% 65% 65% 65% 64% 64% 64% 63% 63% 63% 62% 59% 59%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Wind % 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Future Renewables % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 12% 12%
Distributed Solar Water Heating % 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Energy Efficiency % 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10%
Commercial PV % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
Existing Thermal GWH 638 445 258 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal GWH - 181 332 545 512 510 510 508 446 444 443 442 441 440 438 436 437 436 418 416
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
New Renewables GWH - 6 38 79 107 107 107 106 168 168 168 168 167 167 167 167 167 167 185 185
TOTAL ENERGY 662 656 651 647 643 641 640 638 637 636 634 633 632 630 629 627 628 626 628 625
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 10 16 23 30 34 37 40 44 47 50 54 57 61 64 68 71 75 79 82
System Load GWH 662 656 651 647 642 640 639 638 636 635 634 632 631 629 628 626 625 624 622 620
LOLH HOURS 5 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dump Energy GWH - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Emergency Energy GWH 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 738 686 734 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO BBL (000) 135 186 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GBTU - - - 4,682 4,374 4,356 4,353 4,332 3,786 3,770 3,752 3,746 3,734 3,720 3,711 3,693 3,752 3,761 3,641 3,604
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 466 461 419 274 256 255 255 253 221 221 219 219 218 218 217 216 219 220 213 211
CO2 Intensity LBS/MWH 1,401 1,385 1,254 818 762 756 753 747 651 647 641 639 635 630 627 622 630 630 608 600
NOX TONS (000) 25 22 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY
Existing Thermal MW 152 129 103 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal MW - 42 42 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 136 136 136 136 136 127 127 127 127
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
New Renewables MW - 3 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 178 165 154 154 154 154 154 154 153 153 155 155 155 155 154 145 145 145 145
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 14
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 108 108 107 106 106 106 105 105 105 105 104 104 104 104 104 103 103 103 103
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7,834 15,105 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 7,502 13,803 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 7,590 14,298 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 9,746 9,713 9,990 10,316 11,087 10,494 10,678 10,966 11,338 11,472 12,048 12,068 12,710 9,969 9,620 9,623 10,924
PS-1c_2 - - - 9,762 9,653 10,133 10,307 10,123 9,567 9,997 9,706 10,177 11,124 10,981 10,680 10,959 9,398 9,848 9,686 9,208
PS-1c_3 - - - 8,671 8,570 8,199 8,901 9,475 8,258 9,238 9,190 9,834 9,446 8,411 9,533 9,911 9,114 10,114 8,856 10,164
PS-1c_4 - - - 7,685 7,988 8,231 8,039 8,109 8,454 8,569 8,897 8,283 8,353 9,549 9,735 9,495 9,177 9,450 9,758 9,722
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 875 908 782 760 725 1,805 2,537 3,600 3,301
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,791 20,304 19,262 19,572
PS-7aa - - - 7,650 7,611 7,768 7,973 8,201 8,238 7,945 8,654 8,758 8,992 9,063 9,657 10,142 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 7,122 6,678 7,031 7,101 7,155 6,653 6,735 6,707 7,167 7,463 7,776 7,781 8,910 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 4,923 4,542 4,663 4,928 5,027 3,450 3,590 3,657 3,454 3,516 3,724 3,820 3,607 7,352 7,074 7,024 7,375
PS-7ad - - - 3,473 3,197 3,320 3,282 3,340 1,949 2,100 2,110 1,751 1,672 1,614 1,954 1,263 3,666 3,457 3,763 3,281
PS-7da - - - 1,938 1,592 1,601 1,673 1,494 846 832 675 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 884 498 382 496 389 182 134 136 159 107 69 76 72 366 409 720 574
PS-7dc - - - 780 441 339 452 381 171 137 130 130 74 60 50 86 283 378 484 307
PS-7dd - - - 825 470 479 432 419 245 228 186 187 159 105 142 132 368 484 672 455
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PS-1a_1 - 743 1,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 710 1,290 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 719 1,338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 1,077 1,066 1,095 1,124 1,206 1,134 1,142 1,177 1,221 1,236 1,305 1,291 1,348 1,039 995 984 1,109
PS-1c_2 - - - 1,078 1,059 1,111 1,123 1,099 1,029 1,066 1,038 1,092 1,196 1,185 1,137 1,156 971 1,010 986 931
PS-1c_3 - - - 953 934 892 965 1,023 884 980 978 1,049 1,009 902 1,007 1,041 943 1,034 899 1,025
PS-1c_4 - - - 841 869 894 866 871 903 906 944 880 886 1,020 1,030 993 946 967 992 980
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 559 569 534 539
PS-7aa - - - 834 825 840 856 879 879 838 917 932 956 967 1,020 1,059 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 774 721 759 761 765 708 710 712 760 792 830 820 935 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 532 489 502 526 536 366 377 385 366 373 395 401 376 758 723 714 743
PS-7ad - - - 376 343 356 350 355 206 220 223 185 177 171 204 131 377 353 381 330
PS-7da - - - 85 70 71 73 65 36 35 29 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 46 25 20 25 20 9 7 7 8 5 3 4 3 18 19 34 27
PS-7dc - - - 40 23 17 23 19 9 7 7 6 4 3 2 4 14 18 23 14
PS-7dd - - - 42 23 24 21 21 12 11 9 9 8 5 7 6 17 22 31 21
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_2 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_3 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_4 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-7aa - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-7ad - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-7da - - - 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-7dc - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-7dd - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-6a 463 473 484 494 506 517 529 540 553 565 578 591 604 618 632 646 660 675 690 706
PS-6b - - 173 176 180 184 189 193 197 202 206 211 215 220 225 230 236 241 246 252
PS-6c - - 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71 73 74 76 78 80 81 83 85 87

PS-1a_1 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1a_2 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1a_3 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_4 - - - 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,021
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,284 5,284 5,284 5,284
PS-7aa - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ad - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7da - - - 2,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dc - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dd - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6a 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270
PS-6b - - 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996
PS-6c - - 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 2,243 1,697 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,411 1,037 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 2,127 1,527 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,293 1,604 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,936 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,407 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,130 4,339 2,573 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 4,886 4,634 4,213 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,153 7,194 2,869 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 10,773 8,288 5,866 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 12,294 11,705 9,513 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 11,993 9,921 7,644 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 3,517 7,798 2,676 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 689 1,678 352 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 935 2,060 543 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 710 1,796 481 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D10 172 132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 102 76 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 150 109 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 177 126 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 629 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 661 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 384 386 228 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 455 409 370 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 886 659 260 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 1,056 767 533 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 1,239 1,126 901 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 1,216 958 727 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 115 260 89 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 23 58 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 32 71 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 24 62 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
PS-5 - - - 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686 2,686
PS-4a - 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226
PS-4c - - 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839

PS-5 - - - 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948 13,948
PS-4a - 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475
PS-4c - - 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 75.3 94.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 72.0 86.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 72.9 89.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 73.9 71.8 72.1 72.4 75.7 69.8 68.7 69.3 70.1 69.6 71.9 69.5 70.8 53.5 50.1 48.5 53.3
PS-1c_2 - - - 74.0 71.3 73.2 72.3 69.0 63.3 64.2 61.1 62.7 67.3 65.3 61.3 60.8 50.1 50.9 48.6 44.7
PS-1c_3 - - - 65.4 62.9 58.7 62.1 64.3 54.5 59.0 57.7 60.3 56.8 49.7 54.3 54.7 48.6 52.1 44.3 49.3
PS-1c_4 - - - 57.7 58.5 58.8 55.8 54.7 55.6 54.5 55.6 50.6 50.0 56.2 55.5 52.2 48.8 48.7 48.9 47.1
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.7 2.5 6.0 8.2 11.3 10.0
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 81.7 81.3 74.6 73.5
PS-7aa - - - 57.3 55.5 55.3 55.1 55.2 54.1 50.5 54.0 53.5 53.8 53.3 54.9 55.7 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 53.1 48.5 49.9 49.0 48.0 43.6 42.8 41.9 43.7 44.6 45.7 44.2 49.1 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 36.5 32.9 33.1 33.9 33.7 22.6 22.8 22.7 21.0 21.0 21.8 21.6 19.8 39.1 36.5 35.2 35.7
PS-7ad - - - 25.8 23.2 23.5 22.6 22.3 12.7 13.3 13.1 10.6 10.0 9.4 11.0 6.9 19.5 17.8 18.8 15.9
PS-7da - - - 10.2 8.3 8.1 8.2 7.1 3.9 3.7 3.0 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 11.5 6.2 4.7 5.9 4.5 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.3 3.5 6.1 4.6
PS-7dc - - - 10.0 5.5 4.1 5.3 4.4 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 2.5 3.3 4.1 2.5
PS-7dd - - - 10.4 5.7 5.7 5.0 4.7 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 3.2 4.1 5.6 3.6
D10 23.3 35.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 21.5 31.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 20.3 29.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 24.1 33.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 57.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 36.1 35.6 20.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 45.5 40.1 35.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 58.9 42.9 16.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 70.1 49.9 33.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 82.4 73.3 57.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 80.8 62.3 46.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 14.1 31.3 10.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 7.0 17.0 3.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 9.5 20.9 5.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 7.2 18.2 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b
DSM-3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 62.0 116.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 59.3 105.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 60.0 109.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 86.4 83.6 84.0 84.3 88.5 81.3 80.1 80.7 81.9 81.1 83.7 81.0 82.7 62.3 58.4 56.5 62.3
PS-1c_2 - - - 86.5 83.1 85.2 84.2 80.6 73.8 74.8 71.2 73.2 78.5 76.1 71.4 71.0 58.3 59.3 56.6 52.3
PS-1c_3 - - - 76.4 73.3 68.4 72.4 75.1 63.4 68.8 67.2 70.4 66.2 57.9 63.3 63.9 56.6 60.7 51.7 57.6
PS-1c_4 - - - 67.4 68.2 68.5 65.0 63.9 64.8 63.5 64.8 59.1 58.2 65.5 64.7 60.9 56.8 56.8 56.9 55.0
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.1 7.6 10.4 14.2 12.6
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 123.2 122.4 112.4 111.0
PS-7aa - - - 66.9 64.7 64.4 64.2 64.5 63.0 58.8 62.9 62.5 62.7 62.1 64.0 65.0 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 62.1 56.5 58.2 57.1 56.1 50.8 49.8 48.8 51.0 52.0 53.3 51.5 57.4 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 42.7 38.4 38.5 39.5 39.3 26.3 26.5 26.5 24.5 24.5 25.4 25.2 23.1 45.5 42.5 41.0 41.8
PS-7ad - - - 30.2 27.0 27.4 26.3 26.0 14.8 15.5 15.3 12.4 11.6 11.0 12.9 8.1 22.7 20.7 21.9 18.6
PS-7da - - - 11.4 9.2 9.1 9.2 8.0 4.4 4.2 3.3 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 5.2 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.6 2.8 2.1
PS-7dc - - - 4.6 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.1
PS-7dd - - - 4.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.5 1.9 2.5 1.7
D10 14.3 10.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 8.5 6.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.4 8.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 14.8 10.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 61.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 64.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 32.0 31.5 18.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 37.9 33.3 29.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 73.8 53.7 20.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 87.8 62.6 42.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 103.2 91.8 71.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 101.2 78.0 57.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 16.1 35.6 11.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.8 6.7 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 3.7 8.2 2.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 2.8 7.2 1.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PS-5 - - - 32 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
PS-4a - 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PS-4c - - 31 39 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35
Future Renewable - - - - - - - - 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 82 82
DSM-1b - 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DSM-3 - 3 6 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_2 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_3 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_4 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
PS-7aa - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-7ad - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-7da - - - 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
PS-7dc - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
PS-7dd - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
PS-5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4a - 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6
PS-4c - - 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6
Future Renewable - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM-1b - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
DSM-3 - 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.3
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 490 919 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 469 839 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 475 870 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 719 697 701 703 737 679 669 674 684 677 698 676 690 525 491 477 526
PS-1c_2 - - - 720 693 710 702 673 619 626 597 614 656 636 598 595 495 503 480 443
PS-1c_3 - - - 640 615 575 606 629 534 579 565 593 557 488 534 538 480 516 439 489
PS-1c_4 - - - 567 573 577 548 539 547 537 547 500 493 553 545 516 483 482 484 468
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 53 54 45 43 39 95 130 178 159
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,042 1,036 955 942
PS-7aa - - - 564 546 544 543 545 533 498 532 528 530 525 541 551 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 525 479 493 484 475 430 422 412 432 440 451 436 484 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 363 326 327 336 334 223 225 225 208 207 216 214 196 387 361 348 355
PS-7ad - - - 256 229 233 224 222 126 131 130 106 99 93 109 69 193 176 187 158
PS-7da - - - 143 114 112 114 99 55 52 41 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 65 36 27 34 26 12 8 8 10 6 4 4 4 19 21 36 28
PS-7dc - - - 58 32 24 31 25 11 9 8 8 4 3 3 5 15 19 24 15
PS-7dd - - - 61 34 34 29 28 16 14 11 11 9 6 8 7 19 25 33 22
D10 125 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 79 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 119 85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 128 89 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 529 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 561 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 276 271 156 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 326 290 256 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 611 450 174 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 719 518 357 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 820 732 579 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 800 620 465 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 196 434 145 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 38 93 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 52 115 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 40 100 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM-3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7.90 7.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 7.91 7.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 7.91 7.92 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 8.33 8.34 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.34 8.34 8.34 8.42 8.41 8.45 8.44
PS-1c_2 - - - 8.33 8.34 8.33 8.34 8.34 8.39 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.38 8.48 8.47 8.48 8.48
PS-1c_3 - - - 8.37 8.39 8.40 8.38 8.38 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.44 8.42 8.47 8.50 8.50 8.49
PS-1c_4 - - - 8.41 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.44 8.45 8.45 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.45 8.43 8.46 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 12.45 12.47 12.49 12.53 12.52 12.53 12.50 12.55 12.57
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.46 8.47 8.50 8.48
PS-7aa - - - 8.44 8.45 8.45 8.46 8.45 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.45 8.46 8.46 8.45 8.47 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 8.46 8.48 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.46 8.45 8.47 8.47 8.46 8.47 8.43 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 8.51 8.50 8.49 8.50 8.49 8.49 8.48 8.49 8.49 8.47 8.50 8.49 8.48 8.50 8.50 8.49 8.50
PS-7ad - - - 8.49 8.50 8.51 8.50 8.52 8.51 8.50 8.48 8.49 8.50 8.51 8.51 8.50 8.51 8.51 8.51 8.50
PS-7da - - - 12.51 12.40 12.39 12.42 12.45 12.53 12.53 12.61 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 12.42 12.65 12.59 12.62 12.55 12.60 12.86 12.60 12.86 13.22 13.15 13.07 12.82 12.74 13.03 12.92 13.09
PS-7dc - - - 12.58 12.61 12.71 12.63 12.60 12.69 12.79 12.60 12.93 13.22 13.35 13.17 12.58 12.82 12.89 12.71 13.09
PS-7dd - - - 12.80 13.09 12.99 12.93 12.96 13.19 13.10 13.16 13.26 13.31 13.35 13.28 13.21 13.26 13.23 13.14 13.22
D10 8.74 8.75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.26 9.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.53 9.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.66 8.66 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.62 8.63 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.61 8.69 8.70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.27 8.37 8.43 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 8.18 8.28 8.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.98 8.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 7.91 7.95 8.04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b
DSM-3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 5 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 9 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 14 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 12 17 19 13 18 21 24 30 27 23 15 41 27 105 126 126 97
PS-1c_2 - - - 14 24 22 22 23 60 32 104 73 23 51 30 79 153 83 95 147
PS-1c_3 - - - 54 38 110 103 33 83 50 73 46 88 148 162 118 48 51 91 85
PS-1c_4 - - - 102 77 40 95 113 33 54 43 94 152 74 82 93 58 84 51 71
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 77 84 81 87 58 140 146 107 122
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 15 43 51
PS-7aa - - - 41 53 25 13 46 48 111 47 68 43 55 45 61 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 60 156 131 118 149 260 215 190 154 120 94 115 117 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 288 272 243 238 264 203 207 192 202 185 224 213 185 105 136 126 113
PS-7ad - - - 216 277 305 277 336 212 196 185 169 138 173 176 104 191 172 135 136
PS-7da - - - 289 280 277 264 267 105 98 107 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 189 165 171 175 138 53 36 37 28 31 21 26 24 71 88 88 63
PS-7dc - - - 192 158 147 156 126 52 41 40 29 32 27 27 23 71 86 85 61
PS-7dd - - - 242 200 221 187 186 94 75 71 51 58 43 53 49 82 100 103 76
D10 333 135 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 296 191 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 340 192 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 353 110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 265 149 382 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 257 245 459 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 109 112 339 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 35 68 245 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 54 37 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 42 33 39 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 166 335 189 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 90 199 59 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 105 215 75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 84 186 78 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b
DSM-3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 4,447 8,409 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 4,447 8,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 4,447 8,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 7,903 7,903 7,896 7,896 8,103 7,849 7,825 7,857 7,894 7,849 7,903 7,737 7,884 7,072 6,513 6,816 7,366
PS-1c_2 - - - 7,948 7,864 7,919 7,904 7,724 7,852 7,765 7,446 7,641 7,877 7,701 7,483 7,443 7,555 7,548 7,285 6,686
PS-1c_3 - - - 7,763 7,854 7,456 7,554 7,908 7,301 7,757 7,561 8,067 7,530 6,656 7,487 7,318 7,186 8,119 6,885 7,592
PS-1c_4 - - - 7,541 7,622 7,791 7,533 7,530 7,787 7,688 7,785 7,179 7,235 8,004 7,578 7,542 7,572 7,529 7,550 7,358
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - 431 439 374 354 327 792 1,070 1,494 1,336
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,839 7,840 7,367 7,214
PS-7aa - - - 7,884 7,778 7,876 7,911 7,832 7,738 7,316 7,762 7,589 7,710 7,728 7,748 8,177 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 7,723 7,212 7,332 7,194 7,099 6,408 6,233 5,928 6,474 6,557 6,644 6,485 6,741 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 5,801 5,091 5,061 5,316 5,170 3,433 3,437 3,477 3,196 3,094 3,386 3,296 2,978 6,070 5,683 5,392 5,565
PS-7ad - - - 3,930 3,629 3,690 3,491 3,586 2,022 2,060 1,953 1,638 1,542 1,495 1,753 1,078 3,068 2,828 2,975 2,487
PS-7da - - - 1,555 1,206 1,178 1,209 1,062 599 570 464 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 1,456 857 631 804 600 278 214 198 245 177 110 114 98 474 557 926 748
PS-7dc - - - 1,351 750 580 734 597 269 214 189 204 122 100 77 110 376 496 587 400
PS-7dd - - - 1,525 913 886 765 729 440 388 315 318 268 175 225 200 546 693 915 612
D10 3,493 2,658 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 2,802 2,053 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 3,029 2,186 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,564 2,554 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 6,149 6,271 3,587 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,584 6,534 5,823 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,450 6,822 2,930 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 7,277 6,808 6,031 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 7,244 7,249 7,692 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 7,410 7,413 7,867 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 1,237 2,741 918 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 612 1,490 305 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 831 1,829 471 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 631 1,595 417 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b
DSM-3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.26 14.58 14.91 15.24 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.67 17.04 17.42 17.80
PS-1c_2 - - - 12.47 12.76 13.04 13.34 13.63 13.94 14.26 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.59 15.93 16.28 16.64 17.03 17.41 17.81
PS-1c_3 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.56 14.90 15.24 15.57 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1c_4 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.89 15.22 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.54 4.65 4.75 4.86
PS-7aa - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.57 15.93 16.28 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.62 13.94 14.25 14.58 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.94 16.29 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 12.46 12.74 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.91 14.23 14.56 14.89 15.22 15.58 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.42 17.79
PS-7ad - - - 12.45 12.73 13.02 13.31 13.62 13.91 14.21 14.54 14.87 15.20 15.56 15.90 16.27 16.63 17.01 17.39 17.78
PS-7da - - - 7.46 7.63 7.80 7.97 8.15 8.33 8.52 8.73 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 8.80 9.01 9.20 9.41 9.64 9.84 10.10 10.31 10.49 10.75 11.02 11.31 11.48 11.82 12.06 12.31 12.59
PS-7dc - - - 8.81 9.00 9.22 9.41 9.64 9.83 10.07 10.32 10.49 10.75 11.00 11.28 11.48 11.82 12.05 12.32 12.61
PS-7dd - - - 8.81 9.01 9.22 9.42 9.63 9.86 10.07 10.31 10.50 10.76 11.03 11.29 11.51 11.82 12.05 12.31 12.62
D10 12.03 12.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.03 12.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.03 12.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.27 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.26 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.26 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 12.02 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 7.16 7.30 7.47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.46 8.63 8.83 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 8.47 8.62 8.84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 8.47 8.63 8.84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-5
PS-4a
PS-4c
Future Renewable
DSM-1b
DSM-3
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D5
CASE 3 RESULTS


250,000 Case 3
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 3
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO LPG Tynes Bay - WTE System Load (net of DSM)

220 Case 3
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 3
120
100
80
(MW)
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - Generation $000 16,375 - 4,145 12,622 14,766 19,197 19,197 19,197 19,197 19,197 21,648 21,648 21,648 21,648 21,648 27,184 27,184 27,184 27,184 27,184 27,184
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 31,962 84,083 73,464 33,696 30,006 19,619 20,428 20,686 21,097 22,464 17,665 17,816 17,985 18,081 19,344 7,978 7,761 8,307 6,618 7,270 4,280
Fuel - New $000 53,733 - 10,624 42,089 49,772 56,973 58,586 60,473 62,145 63,169 70,120 72,145 73,994 76,513 77,830 86,825 89,658 91,851 95,366 97,558 101,219
Variable O&M - Existing $000 2,694 7,360 6,335 2,891 2,432 1,687 1,718 1,726 1,736 1,806 1,455 1,454 1,459 1,438 1,515 536 495 515 401 447 251
Variable O&M - New $000 1,555 - 356 1,360 1,359 1,742 1,786 1,819 1,864 1,905 1,934 1,977 2,029 2,074 2,113 2,452 2,511 2,563 2,653 2,698 2,852
Fixed O&M - New $000 6,934 - 1,281 5,224 5,637 7,585 7,755 7,930 8,108 8,291 8,816 9,014 9,217 9,424 9,637 12,128 12,400 12,679 12,965 13,256 13,555
Renewable $000 5,954 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL COSTS $000 129,256 126,877 119,123 120,854 125,774 128,076 116,512 119,177 121,836 124,831 129,636 132,409 135,089 138,301 141,619 146,306 149,679 153,191 155,756 159,482 160,975
$/MWh 190.8 190.8 178.9 180.9 187.7 190.6 172.9 176.3 179.7 183.6 190.1 193.5 196.9 200.9 205.1 211.3 215.5 219.9 222.9 227.6 229.0

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 20,645 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 23,594 - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 39,905 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_2 - - 40,803 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_3 - - 40,803 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_4 - - - - 42,660 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53,290 - - - - -
Battery
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Energy Efficiency - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 28,055 55,490 97,696 35,678 57,182 - - - - 23,594 - - - - 53,290 - - - - -
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 562 466 217 169 124 123 121 119 120 97 95 94 90 93 28 25 25 19 21 11
LFO GWH 79 67 19 29 7 8 8 8 10 3 3 2 2 2 6 7 7 6 5 3
LPG GWH - 109 409 449 518 520 524 528 528 559 563 567 573 572 635 639 641 651 651 665
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 677 679 681 683 685 687 689 691 693 695 697 699 701 703

HFO % 85% 70% 32% 25% 18% 18% 18% 17% 18% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%
LFO % 12% 10% 3% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
LPG % 0% 16% 61% 67% 77% 77% 77% 78% 78% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 92% 92% 92% 93% 93% 95%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
New Thermal GWH - 109 409 449 518 520 524 528 528 559 563 567 573 572 635 639 641 651 651 665
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
New Renewables GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL ENERGY 665 666 668 670 672 674 677 679 681 683 685 687 689 691 693 695 697 699 701 703
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
System Load GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
LOLH HOURS 22 - - - - 3 - - - - - - - 10 - 24 9 6 - -
Dump Energy GWH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Emergency Energy GWH 0.2 - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.0 - -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 737 610 287 221 163 161 159 156 157 129 126 124 120 123 37 32 32 24 27 15
LFO BBL (000) 141 117 38 60 15 18 17 18 22 7 6 5 5 5 15 16 17 14 13 8
LNG GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 468 451 415 426 408 410 413 415 417 423 425 426 429 431 421 423 426 427 428 426
NOX TONS (000) 25 22 13 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 7
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY
New Thermal MW - 19 57 70 89 89 89 89 89 103 103 103 103 103 122 122 122 122 122 122
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
New Renewables MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 163 169 163 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 169 169 169 169 169 169
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peak (net of DSM) MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
Reserves MW 38.4 43.0 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 7,463 2,624 2,790 3,906 4,450 4,489 3,181 3,955 4,171 5,104 5,207 6,236 6,837 7,041 7,574 6,531 5,760
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 7,489 7,696 8,049 8,422 8,756 7,174 7,671 8,230 8,642 10,777 10,677
PS-3b_1 - 10,624 14,585 14,884 14,462 14,798 14,988 15,307 15,703 15,798 16,057 16,404 16,706 17,151 18,047 18,457 18,820 19,194 19,868 20,304
PS-3b_2 - - 13,824 13,892 13,959 14,700 14,251 14,910 15,201 15,440 15,608 16,577 15,896 17,021 18,176 18,665 19,071 19,303 19,525 20,973
PS-3b_3 - - 13,680 13,533 13,130 13,172 13,971 13,850 14,099 14,304 14,626 14,320 15,747 15,572 17,327 17,640 17,902 18,317 19,425 19,629
PS-3b_4 - - - - 12,798 13,125 13,356 13,629 13,677 13,910 14,203 14,472 14,637 14,124 15,848 16,280 16,669 18,081 17,005 19,726
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,018 4,107 4,118 4,254 4,428 4,150

PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 356 474 482 468 479 487 500 516 520 530 545 557 574 609 622 636 649 674 690
PS-3b_2 - - 446 445 451 474 461 485 497 506 513 548 527 567 614 631 646 654 664 714
PS-3b_3 - - 440 431 418 419 447 444 454 462 475 467 515 512 581 591 600 615 657 664
PS-3b_4 - - - - 405 415 425 435 438 447 458 469 476 460 528 543 556 605 568 660
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 121 124 124 129 135 125
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 378 387 396 404 414 423
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 339 346 354 362 370 378 387 396 404 414 423
PS-3b_1 - 1,281 1,741 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_2 - - 1,741 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_3 - - 1,741 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_4 - - - - 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542

PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451
PS-3b_1 - 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145
PS-3b_2 - - 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238
PS-3b_3 - - 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238
PS-3b_4 - - - - 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 2,448 2,218 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,433 1,232 781 1,135 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 2,218 2,004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,303 2,297 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,953 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,775 8,968 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,256 4,314 3,369 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 4,891 4,746 4,973 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,208 8,402 3,942 5,934 6,479 6,486 6,595 6,444 6,767 5,743 5,787 6,478 6,452 7,220 - - - - - -
E6 11,031 10,130 3,630 4,124 2,789 3,158 2,737 3,367 3,244 5,947 5,809 5,989 6,369 7,512 - - - - - -
E7 12,319 12,787 7,139 6,741 3,836 3,857 4,153 3,950 4,334 2,242 2,441 2,319 1,811 1,598 2,811 2,567 2,571 1,971 2,891 1,405
E8 12,042 12,028 6,598 6,709 4,840 4,822 5,127 5,161 5,408 2,777 2,909 2,547 2,668 2,211 2,927 2,655 2,860 2,290 2,082 1,340
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 3,742 2,734 2,291 3,494 1,174 1,335 1,659 1,493 1,775 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 762 533 311 534 137 248 148 238 318 290 249 203 254 208 587 808 819 614 513 385
GT7 960 638 347 701 184 293 139 246 355 359 345 248 304 324 880 921 1,130 920 994 562
GT8 741 434 315 633 180 229 126 198 262 308 277 201 224 271 773 810 927 823 789 588

D10 188 173 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 104 91 58 84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 156 144 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 178 181 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 631 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 611 675 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 396 384 298 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 455 420 436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 891 773 357 534 577 572 576 556 577 483 480 531 521 575 - - - - - -
E6 1,082 946 330 372 249 279 240 292 277 502 483 492 516 599 - - - - - -
E7 1,242 1,234 674 629 353 351 374 351 381 194 209 196 151 131 227 204 201 152 219 105
E8 1,221 1,167 628 633 452 446 469 466 483 245 253 219 226 184 240 214 227 179 160 102
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 123 91 76 116 39 44 54 48 57 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 26 18 11 18 5 8 5 8 11 10 8 7 8 6 18 25 25 18 15 11
GT7 33 22 12 24 6 10 5 8 12 12 11 8 10 10 27 28 34 27 29 16
GT8 25 15 11 22 6 8 4 7 9 10 9 6 7 8 24 25 28 24 23 17
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 297 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 41.0 14.0 14.5 19.9 22.2 22.0 15.2 18.7 19.2 23.1 23.3 27.1 29.0 29.3 30.9 26.0 22.4
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 35.7 36.1 37.0 38.1 38.9 31.1 32.5 34.3 35.2 43.0 41.6
PS-3b_1 - 78.7 86.1 85.5 81.4 81.3 80.9 81.0 82.0 80.8 80.6 80.7 80.9 81.6 84.6 84.4 84.6 84.5 85.8 85.7
PS-3b_2 - - 80.9 78.8 78.3 80.5 76.5 78.6 79.0 78.7 78.0 81.3 76.6 80.6 85.4 85.5 85.9 85.1 84.4 88.6
PS-3b_3 - - 79.9 76.4 72.6 71.1 74.2 71.9 72.2 71.8 72.2 69.3 74.9 72.8 80.7 80.1 79.8 80.0 83.6 82.3
PS-3b_4 - - - - 70.4 70.5 70.5 70.6 69.6 69.4 69.7 69.6 69.1 65.4 73.4 73.6 74.0 78.7 72.3 81.9
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.9 16.8 16.5 16.8 17.1 15.5
D10 25.4 23.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 21.9 18.8 11.6 16.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 21.1 19.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 24.2 24.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 61.2 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 37.2 35.3 26.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 45.5 41.1 41.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 59.3 50.3 22.7 33.1 35.1 34.0 33.5 31.5 32.1 26.3 25.6 27.6 26.5 28.6 - - - - - -
E6 71.9 61.5 21.0 23.1 15.1 16.6 13.9 16.5 15.4 27.3 25.7 25.5 26.2 29.8 - - - - - -
E7 82.5 80.2 42.9 39.0 21.5 20.9 21.8 19.9 21.2 10.6 11.1 10.2 7.7 6.5 11.0 9.7 9.4 6.9 9.7 4.5
E8 81.1 75.8 39.9 39.3 27.5 26.5 27.3 26.5 26.9 13.3 13.5 11.4 11.5 9.2 11.7 10.2 10.6 8.2 7.1 4.4
GT5 15.0 11.0 9.0 13.3 4.4 4.8 5.8 5.1 5.8 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 7.7 5.4 3.1 5.1 1.3 2.3 1.3 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 4.0 5.3 5.2 3.8 3.0 2.2
GT7 9.7 6.5 3.4 6.8 1.7 2.7 1.2 2.1 3.0 2.9 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 6.0 6.0 7.2 5.6 5.9 3.2
GT8 7.5 4.4 3.1 6.1 1.7 2.1 1.1 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.9 5.3 5.3 5.9 5.0 4.7 3.3
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 49.3 16.8 17.4 23.8 26.7 26.4 18.3 22.4 23.2 27.8 27.9 32.5 34.9 35.2 37.0 31.3 27.0
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 42.9 43.3 44.5 45.7 46.6 37.4 39.1 41.1 42.3 51.6 50.0
PS-3b_1 - 109.3 142.6 141.9 134.7 134.6 133.9 134.4 135.7 133.7 133.5 134.1 134.0 135.1 140.1 140.1 140.1 139.9 142.0 142.2
PS-3b_2 - - 134.0 130.9 129.6 133.3 126.7 130.5 130.7 130.3 129.2 134.9 126.9 133.4 141.3 142.0 142.3 140.8 139.7 147.1
PS-3b_3 - - 132.3 126.9 120.2 117.7 122.9 119.4 119.5 118.8 119.5 115.0 124.0 120.5 133.7 133.0 132.2 132.5 138.4 136.6
PS-3b_4 - - - - 116.5 116.8 116.8 117.1 115.2 114.9 115.4 115.5 114.5 108.3 121.6 122.3 122.6 130.3 119.6 136.0
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28.0 27.9 27.4 27.8 28.4 25.7
D10 15.6 14.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 8.6 7.4 4.6 6.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 13.0 11.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 14.8 14.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 60.0 64.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 32.9 31.3 23.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 37.9 34.2 34.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 74.2 63.0 28.4 41.6 44.0 42.6 41.9 39.6 40.2 32.9 32.0 34.6 33.2 35.8 - - - - - -
E6 90.0 77.1 26.2 29.0 19.0 20.8 17.4 20.7 19.3 34.2 32.2 32.1 32.9 37.3 - - - - - -
E7 103.4 100.5 53.7 49.0 26.9 26.2 27.3 25.0 26.6 13.3 13.9 12.8 9.6 8.2 13.8 12.2 11.7 8.7 12.2 5.7
E8 101.6 95.0 50.0 49.3 34.4 33.2 34.1 33.2 33.6 16.7 16.9 14.3 14.4 11.5 14.7 12.8 13.3 10.2 8.9 5.5
GT5 17.1 12.5 10.2 15.2 5.0 5.5 6.6 5.8 6.7 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 3.0 2.1 1.2 2.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9
GT7 3.8 2.6 1.4 2.7 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.2 2.3 1.3
GT8 3.0 1.7 1.2 2.4 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.3
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7
PS-3b_1 - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_2 - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_3 - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_4 - - - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
N-2 14.3 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
N-3 14.3 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 43 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 598 207 215 296 331 328 228 279 289 347 347 407 437 441 465 392 339
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 537 542 557 572 584 469 490 516 530 647 628
PS-3b_1 - 913 1,197 1,192 1,140 1,140 1,135 1,139 1,148 1,133 1,131 1,136 1,135 1,143 1,179 1,180 1,179 1,178 1,193 1,194
PS-3b_2 - - 1,135 1,113 1,101 1,132 1,079 1,109 1,111 1,108 1,100 1,148 1,080 1,135 1,188 1,193 1,194 1,184 1,173 1,234
PS-3b_3 - - 1,123 1,084 1,035 1,015 1,058 1,030 1,030 1,026 1,030 992 1,070 1,038 1,132 1,127 1,121 1,124 1,167 1,155
PS-3b_4 - - - - 1,009 1,011 1,011 1,014 1,000 998 1,001 1,002 994 942 1,036 1,041 1,044 1,109 1,021 1,160
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 263 263 258 261 266 244
D10 136 123 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 80 69 42 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 124 112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 128 128 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 531 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 519 561 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 284 270 205 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 326 297 302 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 614 525 240 351 371 359 354 334 339 278 270 292 280 302 - - - - - -
E6 736 633 221 244 160 175 147 175 162 288 271 270 277 314 - - - - - -
E7 822 800 434 398 220 214 223 205 217 108 114 105 79 67 113 99 96 71 100 47
E8 803 752 401 397 277 267 275 267 271 134 136 115 116 93 118 103 107 82 72 45
GT5 208 152 125 185 61 67 81 70 81 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 42 30 17 28 7 12 7 11 15 13 11 8 10 8 22 29 29 21 17 12
GT7 53 36 19 37 9 15 7 12 16 16 15 10 12 13 33 33 39 31 32 18
GT8 41 24 17 34 9 11 6 9 12 14 12 8 9 10 29 29 32 28 26 18
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 12.12 12.33 12.38 12.41 12.39 12.43 12.47 12.43 12.47 12.49 12.43 12.54 12.54 12.54 12.55 12.55 12.55
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 12.52 12.52 12.52 12.53 12.51 12.54 12.54 12.54 12.55 12.55 12.55
PS-3b_1 - 8.35 8.39 8.40 8.46 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.46 8.47 8.48 8.47 8.47 8.46 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.40 8.40
PS-3b_2 - - 8.47 8.51 8.49 8.50 8.52 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.51 8.51 8.51 8.51 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.41 8.39 8.39
PS-3b_3 - - 8.49 8.55 8.61 8.62 8.61 8.63 8.62 8.63 8.62 8.62 8.63 8.61 8.47 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.43 8.45
PS-3b_4 - - - - 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.68 8.68 8.67 8.68 8.69 8.70 8.52 8.51 8.52 8.51 8.54 8.53
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.39 9.39 9.42 9.40 9.37 9.51
D10 8.74 8.74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.27 9.26 9.26 9.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.53 9.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.66 8.66 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.62 8.63 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.61 8.68 8.70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.28 8.34 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 - - - - - -
E6 8.17 8.22 8.41 8.41 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 8.08 8.14 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.17 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18
E8 7.91 7.92 8.03 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 305 266 226 278 283 275 203 246 265 248 249 291 297 280 287 42 71
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 254 283 287 313 344 312 354 352 332 59 57
PS-3b_1 - 14 8 23 24 26 14 17 20 17 19 21 14 12 15 22 20 17 16 22
PS-3b_2 - - 18 27 25 19 16 16 16 18 12 17 16 18 23 22 15 24 14 21
PS-3b_3 - - 21 11 22 17 15 26 14 19 19 14 20 15 23 25 27 28 15 18
PS-3b_4 - - - - 13 13 15 21 17 15 22 17 17 24 96 91 88 90 13 16
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 24 20 20 18 17
D10 351 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 301 291 234 270 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 384 361 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 389 406 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 20 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 239 204 373 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 264 275 299 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 99 77 249 270 234 265 242 239 258 262 243 267 261 261 - - - - - -
E6 40 60 284 259 258 253 290 290 255 257 277 218 225 249 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 149 196 255 247 259 250 258 167 167 170 133 118 233 235 215 182 58 46
E8 37 42 141 132 250 254 261 235 231 181 181 182 215 203 244 230 239 185 55 41
GT5 173 146 113 156 64 78 75 76 83 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 81 79 42 75 22 32 24 38 37 35 28 25 37 30 65 72 70 52 29 20
GT7 104 84 44 79 19 32 25 37 42 48 40 32 45 36 87 91 86 70 39 27
GT8 70 65 44 69 17 29 21 31 39 34 28 23 35 33 68 76 72 62 37 22
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - 4,685 1,713 1,804 2,501 2,789 2,791 1,957 2,365 2,480 2,993 2,951 3,560 3,812 3,848 4,062 3,432 2,966
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - 4,668 4,713 4,846 4,981 5,063 4,096 4,279 4,501 4,635 5,666 5,498
PS-3b_1 - 5,792 7,844 7,868 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,866 7,851 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,844 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,842 7,842 7,844 7,847
PS-3b_2 - - 7,844 7,868 7,730 7,958 7,684 7,821 7,824 7,821 7,821 8,141 7,661 8,026 7,833 7,862 7,836 7,835 7,661 8,050
PS-3b_3 - - 7,844 7,868 7,836 7,707 7,980 7,866 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,547 8,163 7,844 7,826 7,824 7,812 7,819 7,844 7,868
PS-3b_4 - - - - 7,837 7,844 7,844 7,862 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,844 7,479 7,391 7,400 7,454 7,877 7,365 8,346
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,842 7,864 7,838 7,834 7,844 7,868
D10 3,788 3,452 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 2,854 2,445 1,498 2,135 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 3,151 2,826 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,606 3,571 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,488 8,112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 6,321 6,189 4,676 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,669 6,611 6,919 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,527 7,462 4,040 5,939 6,276 6,085 5,988 5,654 5,740 4,703 4,574 4,944 4,740 5,107 - - - - - -
E6 7,277 7,143 3,724 4,111 2,708 2,967 2,490 2,954 2,757 4,880 4,600 4,579 4,692 5,333 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,248 5,965 6,282 3,727 3,608 3,806 3,502 3,710 1,862 1,969 1,814 1,370 1,142 1,976 1,719 1,664 1,235 1,743 814
E8 7,412 7,412 6,654 6,926 4,885 4,719 4,869 4,738 4,785 2,374 2,401 2,028 2,055 1,640 2,080 1,823 1,889 1,456 1,276 789
GT5 1,316 961 786 1,170 382 422 509 444 512 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 677 473 270 452 113 198 115 179 232 205 170 134 162 128 349 465 455 329 265 192
GT7 853 567 301 593 151 234 108 185 259 253 236 164 194 200 524 530 628 493 514 280
GT8 658 385 273 536 148 183 98 149 191 217 189 133 143 167 460 466 515 441 408 293
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 3.26 3.33 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.63 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.15 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3b_2 - - 3.33 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.88 3.97 4.06 4.16 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
PS-3b_3 - - 3.33 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.15 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
PS-3b_4 - - - - 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.16 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3b_5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
D10 12.03 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.03 12.28 12.57 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.03 12.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.18 10.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.27 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.29 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.27 12.56 12.84 13.12 13.42 13.73 14.04 14.35 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.28 12.56 12.84 13.14 13.44 13.74 14.06 14.37 14.68 15.01 15.35 15.69 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.28 12.55 12.83 13.12 13.42 13.72 14.02 14.35 14.66 15.01 15.35 15.69 16.03 16.39 16.76 17.15 17.52 17.93 18.34
E8 12.02 12.28 12.57 12.85 13.13 13.43 13.73 14.04 14.36 14.67 15.03 15.34 15.68 16.03 16.40 16.76 17.15 17.52 17.95 18.39
GT5 7.16 7.31 7.47 7.65 7.82 7.99 8.16 8.35 8.54 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.47 8.64 8.82 9.04 9.24 9.43 9.63 9.87 10.11 10.32 10.55 10.79 11.05 11.26 11.53 11.78 12.06 12.32 12.60 12.85
GT7 8.47 8.65 8.82 9.03 9.24 9.43 9.63 9.87 10.11 10.33 10.56 10.77 11.05 11.25 11.52 11.79 12.06 12.33 12.60 12.87
GT8 8.47 8.65 8.82 9.04 9.24 9.43 9.63 9.86 10.11 10.32 10.56 10.77 11.06 11.25 11.52 11.79 12.06 12.34 12.62 12.86
Existing WTE
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D6
CASE 4 RESULTS


250,000 Case 4
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 4
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO LNG
Tynes Bay - WTE Utility PV Distributed PV (PPA)
LNG (CCHP / CHP) Energy Efficiency System Load (net of DSM)

220 Case 4
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

160 Case 4
140
120
100
(MW)
80
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure $000 3,178 - - - 3,766 3,826 4,178 4,225 4,578 4,613 4,657 4,692 4,806 4,849 4,880 4,929 4,952 4,890 4,930 4,957 5,016
Debt Service - DSM $000 657 - - - 371 371 759 759 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 17,407 81,696 62,225 32,603 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel - New $000 56,094 - 23,498 45,706 63,701 65,167 64,302 66,095 65,201 66,961 69,010 70,128 71,644 73,163 74,251 76,694 78,667 81,722 84,065 86,547 88,130
Variable O&M - Existing $000 1,542 7,365 5,275 2,998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Variable O&M - New $000 5,780 - 2,228 4,288 6,975 7,106 7,025 7,166 7,069 7,211 7,359 7,513 7,646 7,808 7,970 8,132 8,303 6,730 6,859 6,935 7,153
Fixed O&M - Existing $000 703 3,027 2,176 2,010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fixed O&M - New $000 2,332 - 480 838 2,633 2,692 2,752 2,814 2,878 2,942 3,009 3,076 2,795 2,858 2,922 2,988 3,055 4,979 5,091 5,206 5,323
Renewable $000 6,827 4,167 4,602 5,660 5,908 6,131 6,384 6,650 6,951 7,222 7,530 7,853 8,220 8,549 8,923 9,316 9,761 10,162 10,617 11,094 11,636
DSM $000 7,427 131 316 489 2,731 3,009 5,751 6,167 9,444 9,998 10,997 11,609 12,754 13,510 14,935 15,930 17,820 18,977 21,311 22,673 25,541
TOTAL COSTS $000 137,274 125,896 131,548 137,548 151,858 132,267 120,593 123,319 126,727 129,555 133,168 135,479 138,471 141,343 144,488 148,596 153,166 165,609 171,022 175,560 180,947
$/MWh 202.7 189.3 197.6 205.9 226.7 196.8 178.9 182.4 186.9 190.5 195.2 198.0 201.8 205.4 209.3 214.6 220.5 237.7 244.8 250.5 257.4

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 36,046 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_4 - - - 28,385 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21,744 - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50,865 - - -
PS-7aa - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ad - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7da - - - 2,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dc - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dd - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - 3,450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - 113,771 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - 3,571 - 3,733 - 3,903 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 582 561 587 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO GWH 55 69 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GWH - - - 562 560 540 539 520 519 518 517 515 515 514 513 511 510 509 508 506
LNG (CCHP / CHP) GWH - - - 18 18 37 37 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Distributed PV (PPA) GWH - - 4 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703

HFO % 88% 84% 88% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LFO % 8% 10% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LNG (includes CHP) % 0% 0% 0% 87% 86% 86% 85% 85% 84% 84% 84% 83% 83% 82% 82% 82% 81% 81% 80% 80%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Distributed PV (PPA) % 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
Existing Thermal GWH 638 443 241 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal GWH - 186 352 562 560 540 539 520 519 518 517 515 515 514 513 511 510 509 508 506
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
TOTAL ENERGY 662 659 658 638 637 618 616 596 595 594 592 591 590 588 587 585 584 582 581 579
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 6 10 32 35 56 60 82 85 88 92 95 99 102 106 110 113 116 120 124
System Load GWH 662 659 658 638 637 618 616 596 595 594 592 591 590 588 587 585 584 582 581 579
LOLH HOURS 18 16 - - - - 7 - - - - 12 6 2 - 3 - - - -
Dump Energy GWH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emergency Energy GWH 0.2 0.1 - - - - 0.0 - - - - 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 763 720 746 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LFO BBL (000) 95 129 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG GBTU - - - 4,700 4,677 4,507 4,502 4,332 4,333 4,323 4,312 4,321 4,316 4,304 4,296 4,271 4,301 4,291 4,291 4,241
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - 162 162 324 324 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 461 453 413 284 283 283 282 282 282 281 281 281 281 280 280 278 280 279 279 277
NOX TONS (000) 26 23 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY
Existing Thermal MW 152 129 103 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Thermal MW - 42 42 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 122 122 122 122 122 127 127 127 127
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 178 165 155 156 156 157 157 157 156 156 143 143 143 143 143 148 148 147 147
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 1 2 5 5 8 9 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 19
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 109 109 106 106 103 103 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 97
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7,853 15,278 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 7,848 15,271 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 7,797 15,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 11,355 11,705 12,084 12,444 13,130 13,173 13,614 13,875 13,939 14,193 14,414 14,996 15,557 15,370 16,079 16,854 17,651
PS-1c_2 - - - 11,601 11,832 12,133 12,503 12,505 13,514 13,635 13,866 13,963 14,350 14,455 14,270 16,300 15,001 15,498 15,646 16,424
PS-1c_3 - - - 11,347 11,664 11,975 12,281 12,594 12,423 13,203 13,457 13,340 13,688 13,975 15,213 14,904 11,755 13,170 12,129 14,140
PS-1c_4 - - - 10,512 10,731 10,669 10,971 11,033 11,134 11,497 11,589 11,725 11,681 12,132 12,257 12,178 9,250 8,434 8,792 8,720
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,787 1,862 2,570 1,313
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21,369 22,055 22,705 23,479
PS-7aa - - - 8,100 8,373 8,049 8,181 8,067 7,960 8,038 8,163 8,057 8,178 8,360 8,444 9,342 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 5,378 5,564 4,995 5,011 4,316 4,748 4,803 4,541 5,247 4,975 5,274 5,740 5,888 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 2,738 2,735 2,447 2,540 2,110 2,178 2,208 2,632 1,923 2,389 2,126 2,451 1,779 4,484 4,405 4,823 4,454
PS-7ad - - - 1,521 1,535 1,299 1,360 943 1,028 1,191 1,328 1,885 2,089 2,025 1,772 1,728 2,106 1,966 2,062 1,535
PS-7da - - - 719 719 469 546 334 499 530 515 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 130 95 64 61 49 92 79 45 547 507 514 467 324 192 227 320 137
PS-7dc - - - 128 96 45 102 59 100 94 58 508 513 483 478 267 178 159 248 119
PS-7dd - - - 172 120 73 95 60 111 118 58 509 601 493 607 400 231 211 397 158
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PS-1a_1 - 745 1,434 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 744 1,433 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 739 1,422 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 1,263 1,295 1,336 1,367 1,438 1,437 1,470 1,504 1,514 1,542 1,573 1,618 1,663 1,627 1,688 1,758 1,829
PS-1c_2 - - - 1,291 1,310 1,341 1,373 1,369 1,474 1,473 1,503 1,517 1,560 1,578 1,539 1,742 1,586 1,625 1,628 1,697
PS-1c_3 - - - 1,262 1,290 1,323 1,348 1,378 1,354 1,424 1,456 1,446 1,484 1,523 1,638 1,591 1,234 1,368 1,254 1,452
PS-1c_4 - - - 1,165 1,183 1,173 1,199 1,201 1,206 1,233 1,247 1,265 1,259 1,315 1,311 1,292 961 870 904 891
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 612 626 640 657
PS-7aa - - - 891 916 878 887 871 856 855 872 862 874 899 897 982 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 588 604 541 538 462 506 508 482 558 530 565 608 618 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 297 295 264 272 225 232 233 279 204 253 226 257 185 465 453 494 452
PS-7ad - - - 164 165 139 145 100 109 125 140 199 221 215 186 180 217 201 211 156
PS-7da - - - 32 32 21 24 15 22 23 23 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 7 5 3 3 2 5 4 2 28 26 27 23 16 9 11 16 7
PS-7dc - - - 7 5 2 5 3 5 5 3 26 27 25 25 14 9 8 12 6
PS-7dd - - - 9 6 4 5 3 6 6 3 26 31 25 31 20 11 10 19 7
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 160 279 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_2 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_3 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-1c_4 - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 416 425 435 444
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-7aa - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-7ad - - - 271 277 284 290 296 303 310 317 324 331 339 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-7da - - - 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-7dc - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-7dd - - - 57 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81
PS-6a 463 473 484 494 506 517 529 540 553 565 578 591 604 618 632 646 660 675 690 706
PS-6b - - 173 176 180 184 189 193 197 202 206 211 215 220 225 230 236 241 246 252
PS-6c x2 - - 119 122 125 127 130 133 136 139 142 146 149 152 156 159 163 166 170 174

PS-1a_1 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1a_2 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1a_3 - 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
PS-1c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_4 - - - 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948 2,948
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,259 2,259 2,259 2,259
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,284 5,284 5,284 5,284
PS-7aa - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 4,342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7ad - - - 3,972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7da - - - 2,157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dc - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-7dd - - - 714 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6a 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270
PS-6b - - 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996
PS-6c x2 - - 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 1,822 1,710 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,061 920 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,351 1,238 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,372 1,585 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8,008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,411 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 3,934 3,734 800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,451 4,853 2,374 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,791 7,287 2,843 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 11,605 8,710 3,892 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 12,343 12,418 10,269 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 12,317 11,863 11,214 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,377 5,733 982 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 223 684 57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 308 727 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 321 761 82 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D10 140 133 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 77 68 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 95 88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 184 125 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 661 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 367 332 71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 513 432 209 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 953 671 258 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 1,140 812 358 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,198 982 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 1,250 1,150 1,078 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 78 191 33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8 24 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 10 25 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 11 26 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 279 285 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 47 48 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,584 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,551 10,029 10,570
PS-4a - 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226
PS-4c - - 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839

PS-4a - 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475
PS-4c - - 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 75.5 95.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 75.5 95.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 74.9 95.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 86.7 87.2 88.0 88.0 90.3 88.5 88.5 88.6 87.0 86.9 86.7 87.2 87.4 83.8 85.1 86.7 87.9
PS-1c_2 - - - 88.6 88.1 88.3 88.4 86.0 90.8 88.7 88.5 87.1 87.9 86.9 83.0 91.6 81.7 81.9 80.2 81.6
PS-1c_3 - - - 86.6 86.8 87.1 86.8 86.6 83.4 85.8 85.8 83.1 83.7 84.0 88.3 83.6 63.6 69.0 61.8 69.9
PS-1c_4 - - - 80.0 79.6 77.2 77.2 75.4 74.3 74.3 73.4 72.6 70.9 72.4 70.6 67.9 49.5 43.8 44.6 42.9
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.0 6.1 8.2 4.0
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89.4 89.5 89.5 89.6
PS-7aa - - - 61.2 61.7 57.8 57.1 54.7 52.7 51.5 51.4 49.5 49.2 49.5 48.3 51.6 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 40.3 40.7 35.6 34.7 29.0 31.2 30.6 28.4 32.1 29.9 31.1 32.8 32.5 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 20.4 19.9 17.4 17.5 14.2 14.3 14.1 16.4 11.7 14.3 12.5 13.9 9.7 24.0 22.8 24.4 21.7
PS-7ad - - - 11.3 11.1 9.2 9.4 6.3 6.7 7.5 8.3 11.5 12.5 11.9 10.0 9.5 11.2 10.1 10.4 7.5
PS-7da - - - 3.8 3.8 2.4 2.7 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.5 5.8 5.2 5.3 4.6 3.1 1.8 2.1 2.8 1.2
PS-7dc - - - 1.6 1.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.6 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.8 2.6 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.0
PS-7dd - - - 2.1 1.5 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 5.4 6.3 5.1 6.0 3.8 2.1 1.8 3.4 1.3
D10 19.0 35.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 16.2 28.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.9 23.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 24.9 33.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 34.5 30.6 6.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 51.2 42.3 20.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 63.3 43.7 16.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 75.8 52.9 22.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 82.7 77.9 62.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 83.0 74.8 68.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 9.5 23.0 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.3 6.9 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 3.1 7.4 0.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 3.3 7.7 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 62.2 117.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 62.1 117.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 61.7 116.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 101.3 101.6 102.5 102.5 105.5 103.1 103.2 103.2 101.6 101.2 101.0 101.5 102.1 97.6 99.1 101.0 102.7
PS-1c_2 - - - 103.5 102.7 102.9 103.0 100.5 105.8 103.3 103.1 101.8 102.4 101.3 96.6 107.0 95.2 95.4 93.5 95.3
PS-1c_3 - - - 101.2 101.2 101.5 101.1 101.1 97.2 100.0 100.0 97.1 97.5 97.8 102.9 97.7 74.1 80.4 72.0 81.6
PS-1c_4 - - - 93.5 92.8 90.0 89.9 88.1 86.5 86.5 85.6 84.9 82.6 84.4 82.3 79.4 57.7 51.1 51.9 50.1
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.6 7.7 10.3 5.1
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 134.7 134.8 134.8 135.3
PS-7aa - - - 71.5 71.9 67.4 66.5 63.9 61.4 60.0 59.8 57.8 57.4 57.6 56.3 60.3 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 47.1 47.4 41.5 40.4 33.9 36.3 35.6 33.1 37.5 34.8 36.3 38.2 37.9 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 23.9 23.2 20.3 20.4 16.5 16.7 16.4 19.2 13.7 16.7 14.5 16.2 11.4 27.9 26.6 28.4 25.4
PS-7ad - - - 13.2 13.0 10.7 10.9 7.4 7.8 8.8 9.6 13.4 14.5 13.8 11.7 11.0 13.0 11.8 12.1 8.8
PS-7da - - - 4.3 4.2 2.6 3.0 1.8 2.6 2.7 2.6 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.5
PS-7dc - - - 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.5
PS-7dd - - - 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.6
D10 11.6 10.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 6.4 5.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.9 7.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 15.3 10.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 65.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 30.6 27.1 5.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 42.6 35.2 16.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 79.3 54.8 20.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 94.9 66.2 28.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 103.6 97.6 78.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 104.0 93.7 85.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 10.9 26.2 4.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 0.9 2.7 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 1.2 2.9 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 1.3 3.0 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PS-4a - 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PS-4c - - 31 39 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35
PS-4d - - 4 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
DSM-2d - - - 18 18 37 37 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 14.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_2 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_3 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-1c_4 - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
PS-7aa - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-7ad - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-7da - - - 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
PS-7dc - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
PS-7dd - - - 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
PS-4a - 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6
PS-4c - - 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6
PS-4d - - 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
DSM-2d - - - 2.5 2.5 4.9 4.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.3
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 491 929 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 491 929 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 488 922 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 838 840 847 848 872 852 853 853 841 837 835 840 845 809 821 836 849
PS-1c_2 - - - 856 849 850 852 831 874 854 853 842 847 838 799 885 790 791 776 790
PS-1c_3 - - - 837 837 839 837 837 804 827 828 805 808 810 852 809 619 672 601 680
PS-1c_4 - - - 776 770 748 747 733 720 720 712 707 689 703 686 661 487 431 436 420
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 94 95 127 63
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,125 1,126 1,126 1,130
PS-7aa - - - 598 601 564 557 536 515 504 502 486 482 485 473 507 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 397 399 350 341 287 307 301 279 316 293 306 321 320 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 202 196 172 173 140 141 138 162 116 141 123 137 97 236 225 239 214
PS-7ad - - - 112 110 91 93 63 66 75 82 114 123 117 99 94 111 100 102 74
PS-7da - - - 53 52 33 37 22 32 33 32 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 10 7 4 4 3 6 5 3 33 30 30 26 18 10 12 16 7
PS-7dc - - - 9 7 3 7 4 6 6 4 31 30 28 27 15 9 8 12 6
PS-7dd - - - 13 9 5 6 4 7 7 4 31 35 29 34 22 12 11 20 8
D10 102 95 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 59 51 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 75 69 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 132 88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 561 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 262 234 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 364 303 144 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 653 456 173 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 774 545 237 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 823 777 625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 822 742 682 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 132 319 53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 12 38 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 17 41 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 18 42 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d - - - 162 162 324 324 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7.90 7.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 7.90 7.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 7.90 7.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.27
PS-1c_2 - - - 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.29 8.29 8.30 8.29
PS-1c_3 - - - 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.29 8.35 8.37 8.35 8.34
PS-1c_4 - - - 8.30 8.30 8.31 8.31 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.33 8.33 8.34 8.33 8.34 8.33 8.43 8.43 8.40 8.38
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.33 12.38 12.35 12.40
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35
PS-7aa - - - 8.36 8.36 8.37 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.41 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 8.42 8.42 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.46 8.44 8.44 8.44 8.43 8.43 8.42 8.43 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.46 8.45 8.47 8.49 8.48 8.45 8.45 8.43 8.44
PS-7ad - - - 8.49 8.49 8.49 8.48 8.50 8.51 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.47 8.47 8.48 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.44 8.44
PS-7da - - - 12.37 12.36 12.42 12.37 12.45 12.33 12.30 12.25 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 12.59 12.73 12.53 12.87 12.68 12.49 12.53 12.75 12.45 12.52 12.37 12.56 12.52 12.53 12.28 12.45 12.46
PS-7dc - - - 12.65 12.88 12.96 12.45 12.39 12.62 12.50 12.96 12.21 12.26 12.23 12.24 12.34 12.60 12.70 12.41 12.47
PS-7dd - - - 12.95 13.01 13.00 12.75 13.01 12.81 12.56 13.21 12.44 12.42 12.39 12.38 12.51 12.68 13.04 12.87 12.83
D10 8.73 8.71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.25 9.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.52 9.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.64 8.65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.59 8.62 8.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.53 8.62 8.66 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.24 8.32 8.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.22 8.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 7.99 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 7.90 7.92 7.94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 5 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 9 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 14 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 12 17 18 12 18 10 15 25 18 14 11 15 16 12 15 13 8
PS-1c_2 - - - 13 7 20 15 16 19 21 15 11 12 15 16 14 19 12 13 25
PS-1c_3 - - - 16 23 13 15 19 11 14 12 19 13 12 24 9 68 92 122 160
PS-1c_4 - - - 19 25 19 19 37 31 34 38 33 43 48 59 45 237 258 212 185
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 169 165 88 58
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 14 13 13
PS-7aa - - - 203 187 201 195 228 219 246 232 234 226 223 208 208 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 366 379 380 361 331 347 303 299 337 299 285 297 360 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 314 314 311 317 259 214 223 236 190 196 197 213 159 284 259 181 178
PS-7ad - - - 189 196 180 160 129 138 129 142 201 196 191 154 180 208 162 87 85
PS-7da - - - 163 160 120 122 83 94 87 101 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 62 55 31 39 25 42 21 20 157 161 141 142 100 57 48 34 20
PS-7dc - - - 76 64 34 44 27 47 32 26 142 162 147 132 84 69 62 36 15
PS-7dd - - - 105 83 49 50 40 60 45 39 143 174 155 187 128 80 79 55 25
D10 284 155 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 236 176 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 199 179 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 327 162 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 298 213 200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 239 210 383 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 143 147 483 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 42 122 260 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 49 91 253 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 37 42 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 119 276 81 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 27 93 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 38 94 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 42 106 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 4,447 8,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 4,447 8,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 4,447 8,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 7,903 7,903 7,903 7,903 8,111 7,925 7,923 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1c_2 - - - 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,742 8,133 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,535 8,342 7,923 7,922 7,892 7,956
PS-1c_3 - - - 7,947 7,903 7,926 7,926 7,945 7,693 7,903 7,903 7,910 7,903 7,899 8,295 7,950 7,243 8,106 6,923 7,689
PS-1c_4 - - - 7,922 7,892 7,902 7,905 7,892 7,859 7,846 7,827 7,886 7,820 7,827 7,807 7,406 6,774 5,935 5,628 5,247
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 746 762 1,015 510
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,868
PS-7aa - - - 7,148 7,123 6,937 6,860 6,718 6,531 6,413 6,344 6,388 6,387 6,366 6,153 6,730 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 5,353 5,438 4,919 4,870 4,217 4,468 4,249 3,936 4,490 4,093 4,211 4,395 4,390 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 3,019 2,912 2,548 2,580 2,109 2,010 1,991 2,304 1,694 2,037 1,854 2,121 1,470 3,404 3,223 3,285 3,014
PS-7ad - - - 1,717 1,714 1,402 1,400 986 1,057 1,132 1,236 1,726 1,841 1,756 1,508 1,474 1,750 1,586 1,428 1,039
PS-7da - - - 553 537 348 389 237 334 340 319 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 226 168 104 106 79 135 115 68 744 689 654 611 406 233 246 357 149
PS-7dc - - - 227 176 82 156 87 154 135 94 635 638 584 560 315 220 198 273 130
PS-7dd - - - 331 228 135 160 106 181 173 100 690 792 630 747 498 293 288 504 192
D10 2,661 2,351 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,981 1,725 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,875 1,720 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,237 2,284 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,929 5,089 1,049 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,593 6,272 3,138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,225 6,227 2,852 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 7,268 6,175 3,234 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,036 6,499 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 7,412 7,412 7,867 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 836 2,015 337 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 198 607 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 274 646 78 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 285 676 71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - 11.98 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1c_1 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.93 16.29 16.66 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1c_2 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.92 16.28 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1c_3 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.24 14.56 14.89 15.23 15.57 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.79
PS-1c_4 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.26 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.93 16.28 16.64 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
PS-7aa - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.59 15.94 16.28 - - - -
PS-7ab - - - 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.32 13.62 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.23 15.58 15.93 16.29 - - - -
PS-7ac - - - 12.45 12.73 13.03 13.32 13.62 13.91 14.22 14.55 14.88 15.19 15.53 15.88 16.28 16.65 17.02 17.40 17.78
PS-7ad - - - 12.45 12.70 12.99 13.27 13.60 13.89 14.20 14.53 14.87 15.21 15.56 15.87 16.26 16.63 17.00 17.39 17.77
PS-7da - - - 7.47 7.61 7.79 7.95 8.15 8.31 8.52 8.73 - - - - - - - - -
PS-7db - - - 8.80 8.99 9.18 9.40 9.58 9.82 10.07 10.26 10.52 10.77 11.01 11.25 11.51 11.80 12.05 12.34 12.66
PS-7dc - - - 8.83 9.00 9.18 9.38 9.58 9.81 10.06 10.28 10.52 10.76 11.01 11.23 11.50 11.82 12.05 12.32 12.66
PS-7dd - - - 8.81 9.00 9.19 9.40 9.60 9.84 10.06 10.27 10.51 10.76 11.00 11.25 11.52 11.79 12.05 12.29 12.65
D10 12.04 12.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.05 12.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.05 12.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.25 12.58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.25 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.26 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 12.02 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 7.16 7.30 7.49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.47 8.62 8.83 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 8.47 8.63 8.84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 8.47 8.62 8.84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D7
CASE 5 RESULTS


250,000 Case 5
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 5
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO Tynes Bay - WTE
Utility PV Distributed PV (PPA) Energy Efficiency
System Load (net of DSM)

220 Case 5
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 5
100
80
(MW)
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 46,141 81,739 76,155 52,106 37,845 35,635 36,571 37,762 39,001 40,617 38,796 40,350 41,454 43,035 44,457 22,141 22,908 24,411 24,173 27,242 26,722
Fuel - New $000 48,138 - 10,347 28,794 43,972 46,939 48,622 50,095 52,025 53,238 59,516 61,366 63,257 65,694 67,247 93,614 97,312 100,219 104,767 106,906 111,107
Variable O&M - Existing $000 3,902 7,358 6,599 4,553 3,079 3,100 3,151 3,226 3,249 3,375 3,207 3,277 3,358 3,417 3,535 1,657 1,655 1,741 1,723 1,904 1,899
Variable O&M - New $000 3,945 - 980 2,703 4,100 4,216 4,312 4,396 4,512 4,557 4,723 4,826 4,930 5,027 5,144 7,108 7,282 7,375 7,593 7,564 7,825
Fixed O&M - New $000 1,098 - 205 558 856 1,194 1,221 1,248 1,276 1,305 1,335 1,365 1,395 1,427 1,459 2,203 2,252 2,303 2,355 2,408 2,462
Renewable $000 6,827 4,167 4,602 5,660 5,908 6,131 6,384 6,650 6,951 7,222 7,530 7,853 8,220 8,549 8,923 9,316 9,762 10,162 10,617 11,094 11,636
DSM $000 3,130 131 316 489 784 1,013 1,465 1,765 2,354 2,736 3,511 3,990 4,997 5,592 6,883 7,619 9,263 10,167 12,241 13,348 15,949
TOTAL COSTS $000 144,270 125,932 123,758 133,690 136,635 139,296 128,308 131,764 136,032 139,752 145,011 149,454 154,073 159,240 164,184 176,661 183,459 189,425 196,538 203,559 210,715
$/MWh 213.0 189.4 185.9 200.2 204.0 207.3 190.4 194.9 200.6 205.5 212.6 218.4 224.5 231.4 237.8 255.1 264.2 271.9 281.3 290.5 299.8

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-1a_1 - 24,693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_2 - - 25,249 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_3 - - - 25,817 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32,976 - - - - -
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36,256 - - - - -
PS-2a_1 - - - - 16,648 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - 3,450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 582 531 565 542 558 556 556 552 553 542 541 542 540 545 541 539 537 538 534 539
LFO GWH 55 99 27 39 20 21 20 23 22 31 31 28 30 24 26 28 28 26 29 22
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703

HFO % 88% 80% 85% 81% 83% 83% 82% 81% 81% 79% 79% 79% 78% 79% 78% 78% 77% 77% 76% 77%
LFO % 8% 15% 4% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
New Thermal GWH - 82 222 329 336 337 336 337 333 351 350 349 349 346 464 465 461 464 454 456
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
TOTAL ENERGY 661 659 658 657 656 654 653 651 650 649 647 646 645 643 642 640 639 637 636 634
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
System Load GWH 662 659 658 657 656 654 653 652 650 649 648 646 645 643 642 640 639 637 636 634
LOLH HOURS 32 - 1 15 5 - 2 11 - 12 21 10 1 29 20 15 12 12 22 -
Dump Energy GWH - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emergency Energy GWH 0.4 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 762 685 724 687 707 705 705 700 701 688 686 688 685 691 685 681 679 681 676 682
LFO BBL (000) 96 170 57 80 44 45 44 50 47 69 69 63 67 53 58 61 62 57 63 48
LNG GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 461 453 422 413 407 406 405 405 404 407 407 405 405 402 401 400 400 398 398 394
NOX TONS (000) 25 25 22 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 19 19
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY
New Thermal MW - 14 28 42 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 84 84 84 84 84 84
Existing WTE MW 2.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
TOTAL CAPACITY 155 150 156 151 161 162 162 162 162 149 149 149 148 148 147 147 147 146 146 146
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 109 109 109 108 108 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 106 106 106 106 105 105 105
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 10,347 14,409 14,781 15,296 15,803 16,277 16,892 17,462 18,040 18,754 19,449 20,152 20,890 21,448 22,387 23,197 24,159 25,124 26,250
PS-1a_2 - - 14,386 14,744 15,265 15,751 16,259 16,882 16,918 18,303 18,869 19,412 20,087 20,866 21,359 22,602 23,209 24,135 23,357 27,794
PS-1a_3 - - - 14,447 15,092 15,624 16,074 16,706 17,212 17,824 18,480 19,168 19,802 20,600 20,870 21,828 22,639 23,313 23,951 24,895
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18,573 19,512 19,457 20,779 22,180 21,693
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,620 5,144 5,496 6,101 5,161 4,282
PS-2a_1 - - - - 1,286 1,443 1,484 1,545 1,645 5,349 5,263 5,228 5,653 4,891 5,743 5,838 6,221 6,280 7,133 6,192
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PS-1a_1 - 980 1,352 1,378 1,413 1,444 1,472 1,510 1,543 1,573 1,613 1,652 1,687 1,723 1,740 1,787 1,825 1,868 1,910 1,964
PS-1a_2 - - 1,350 1,375 1,410 1,440 1,471 1,509 1,494 1,596 1,624 1,650 1,682 1,722 1,734 1,805 1,827 1,867 1,775 2,079
PS-1a_3 - - - 1,346 1,393 1,427 1,453 1,493 1,520 1,554 1,589 1,628 1,657 1,699 1,692 1,742 1,780 1,801 1,819 1,859
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,501 1,551 1,524 1,600 1,680 1,614
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 440 397 418 456 380 310
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 205 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_2 - - 279 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_3 - - - 285 292 298 305 312 319 326 334 341 349 357 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 365 373 381 390 399 408
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 346 354 362 370 379 387
PS-2a_1 - - - - 318 326 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-6a 463 473 484 494 506 517 529 540 553 565 578 591 604 618 632 646 660 675 690 706
PS-6b - - 173 176 180 184 189 193 197 202 206 211 215 220 225 230 236 241 246 252
PS-6c x2 - - 119 122 125 127 130 133 136 139 142 146 149 152 156 159 163 166 170 174

PS-1a_1 - 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565
PS-1a_2 - - 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623
PS-1a_3 - - - 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766 3,766
PS-2a_1 - - - - 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729 1,729
PS-6a 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270
PS-6b - - 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996
PS-6c x2 - - 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 1,833 3,573 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 975 1,897 916 1,328 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,221 2,358 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,366 3,671 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8,011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,412 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 3,932 4,798 3,098 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,447 5,954 4,665 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,782 10,003 5,023 3,461 4,480 4,605 4,826 4,926 5,317 4,308 4,721 4,838 5,157 5,299 - - - - - -
E6 11,606 11,681 8,334 4,875 5,204 5,151 5,278 5,377 5,624 5,992 5,964 6,049 6,233 6,864 - - - - - -
E7 12,342 13,138 13,243 10,645 11,120 11,623 11,913 11,804 12,697 12,415 12,656 13,450 13,726 14,561 8,050 7,577 8,279 8,967 11,013 11,499
E8 12,316 12,979 11,693 10,131 11,181 11,484 11,998 12,289 12,735 12,506 13,018 13,606 13,962 14,719 10,960 11,460 12,050 11,769 12,219 12,596
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,471 4,493 3,684 5,288 2,739 2,835 2,650 3,043 3,119 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 277 504 406 625 271 240 276 500 384 1,075 1,137 1,079 1,195 924 1,018 1,220 1,153 935 867 764
GT7 389 565 538 727 330 338 418 547 387 1,251 1,442 1,238 1,342 1,065 1,050 1,312 1,465 1,241 1,445 860
GT8 359 539 506 765 310 295 403 516 354 1,250 1,411 1,194 1,421 1,025 1,063 1,339 1,463 1,261 1,698 1,003

D10 141 280 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 71 140 68 98 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 86 169 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 183 290 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 661 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 367 427 275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 512 530 413 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 952 928 456 312 401 408 423 427 455 363 393 397 417 423 - - - - - -
E6 1,140 1,097 769 443 472 461 469 472 487 509 500 501 509 551 - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,269 1,271 1,011 1,047 1,083 1,098 1,075 1,143 1,102 1,108 1,163 1,169 1,223 656 607 654 696 841 863
E8 1,249 1,262 1,127 967 1,058 1,076 1,112 1,126 1,153 1,116 1,147 1,183 1,196 1,243 904 930 964 925 946 959
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 81 150 123 176 91 93 86 98 100 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 9 17 14 22 9 8 9 17 13 35 37 35 38 29 31 37 35 28 25 22
GT7 13 20 19 25 11 11 14 18 13 41 47 40 43 33 32 40 44 37 42 25
GT8 12 19 17 26 11 10 14 17 12 41 46 38 45 32 33 41 44 38 50 29
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
PS-4a - 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226
PS-4c - - 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839

PS-4a - 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475
PS-4c - - 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 79.7 90.4 89.9 90.4 90.4 90.1 90.1 90.3 90.0 90.3 90.2 90.3 90.2 89.1 89.3 89.4 89.5 89.5 89.7
PS-1a_2 - - 90.3 89.7 90.2 90.0 90.0 90.0 87.5 91.4 90.9 90.0 90.0 90.1 88.8 90.1 89.4 89.4 83.2 95.0
PS-1a_3 - - - 87.8 89.1 89.3 88.9 89.1 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.7 88.9 86.6 87.0 87.2 86.3 85.2 84.9
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 76.8 77.4 74.7 76.6 78.7 73.7
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.7 20.8 21.5 23.0 18.7 14.9
PS-2a_1 - - - - 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 15.6 14.9 14.2 14.9 12.5 14.1 13.9 14.3 13.9 15.4 12.9
D10 19.1 37.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 14.9 29.0 13.6 19.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 11.7 22.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 24.9 38.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 34.5 39.4 24.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 51.2 51.9 39.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 63.2 60.3 29.0 19.3 24.4 24.3 24.6 24.2 25.3 19.7 20.9 20.6 21.2 21.0 - - - - - -
E6 75.8 71.3 48.9 27.4 28.7 27.4 27.2 26.7 27.1 27.6 26.6 26.0 25.9 27.4 - - - - - -
E7 82.7 82.5 80.8 62.7 63.7 64.4 63.9 61.0 63.6 60.0 59.0 60.4 59.5 60.9 31.9 28.8 30.4 31.7 37.4 37.5
E8 83.0 82.0 71.6 59.9 64.3 63.9 64.6 63.8 64.1 60.7 61.0 61.4 60.8 61.8 44.0 44.1 44.9 42.1 42.1 41.6
GT5 9.9 18.0 14.4 20.2 10.2 10.2 9.3 10.3 10.3 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.8 5.1 4.0 6.0 2.5 2.2 2.4 4.3 3.2 8.7 8.9 8.1 8.7 6.5 6.9 8.0 7.3 5.7 5.1 4.3
GT7 3.9 5.7 5.3 7.0 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.7 3.2 10.1 11.2 9.3 9.8 7.5 7.1 8.6 9.3 7.6 8.5 4.9
GT8 3.6 5.5 5.0 7.4 2.9 2.7 3.6 4.4 2.9 10.1 11.0 9.0 10.4 7.2 7.2 8.8 9.3 7.7 10.0 5.7
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 81.9 110.9 110.6 110.8 110.8 110.5 110.8 110.7 110.4 110.8 110.9 110.8 110.7 109.3 109.8 109.6 109.8 109.8 110.3
PS-1a_2 - - 110.7 110.3 110.6 110.4 110.3 110.7 107.3 112.1 111.4 110.7 110.4 110.5 108.9 110.8 109.7 109.7 102.0 116.8
PS-1a_3 - - - 108.0 109.3 109.5 109.0 109.5 109.1 109.0 109.1 109.3 108.8 109.1 106.2 107.0 106.9 105.8 104.4 104.4
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 94.2 95.2 91.6 94.0 96.5 90.6
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.6 24.4 25.1 26.8 21.8 17.4
PS-2a_1 - - - - 5.5 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.2 19.7 18.8 18.0 18.8 15.7 17.8 17.6 18.1 17.6 19.4 16.3
D10 11.7 22.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 5.9 11.4 5.4 7.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.1 13.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 15.3 23.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 65.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 30.5 34.8 21.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 42.6 43.2 32.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 79.2 75.6 36.3 24.3 30.6 30.4 30.8 30.4 31.7 24.7 26.2 25.9 26.6 26.4 - - - - - -
E6 94.9 89.3 61.3 34.5 35.9 34.4 34.1 33.6 33.9 34.6 33.3 32.6 32.4 34.4 - - - - - -
E7 103.6 103.4 101.3 78.8 79.8 80.7 80.0 76.6 79.7 75.1 73.9 75.8 74.6 76.3 40.0 36.2 38.1 39.7 46.9 47.1
E8 104.0 102.7 89.7 75.2 80.6 80.1 81.0 80.1 80.3 76.0 76.4 77.1 76.2 77.4 55.1 55.4 56.2 52.8 52.8 52.3
GT5 11.3 20.5 16.4 23.0 11.6 11.6 10.6 11.8 11.7 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 1.1 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.7 1.3 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.6 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.0 1.7
GT7 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.8 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.3 4.0 4.4 3.7 3.9 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.7 3.0 3.4 1.9
GT8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.9 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.2 4.0 4.3 3.6 4.1 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.0 4.0 2.3
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PS-4a - 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PS-4c - - 31 39 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35
PS-4d - - 4 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_2 - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_3 - - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
PS-2a_1 - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
PS-4a - 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6
PS-4c - - 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6
PS-4d - - 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.3
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 647 876 874 876 875 873 876 875 872 875 876 875 874 864 868 867 867 867 872
PS-1a_2 - - 875 872 874 873 872 875 848 885 880 875 872 873 861 876 867 867 806 923
PS-1a_3 - - - 854 864 866 862 866 862 862 862 864 860 862 841 846 846 837 827 827
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 748 756 727 746 766 720
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 226 199 205 219 178 142
PS-2a_1 - - - - 66 72 72 73 75 237 226 217 226 189 214 211 217 211 231 194
D10 102 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 54 106 50 70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 68 131 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 132 204 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 561 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 262 300 188 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 363 372 284 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 653 626 306 205 257 255 259 255 266 208 220 218 224 222 - - - - - -
E6 774 730 507 288 298 285 283 279 282 290 278 273 271 287 - - - - - -
E7 823 822 805 629 637 644 639 612 636 600 591 606 596 609 324 294 309 322 380 382
E8 822 812 711 599 640 636 643 637 638 605 607 613 606 616 441 444 450 423 422 418
GT5 138 250 200 281 141 142 129 143 143 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 15 28 22 33 14 12 13 24 18 48 49 45 48 36 38 44 40 31 28 24
GT7 22 31 29 39 17 17 20 26 18 55 62 51 54 41 39 47 51 42 47 27
GT8 20 30 28 41 16 15 20 24 16 55 60 49 57 40 40 48 51 42 55 31
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90
PS-1a_2 - - 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.90
PS-1a_3 - - - 7.91 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.90 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.92 7.92
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.94 7.94 7.94 7.94 7.94 7.95
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.19 8.19 8.18 8.18 8.17 8.18
PS-2a_1 - - - - 12.15 12.15 12.14 12.14 12.16 12.00 12.00 12.03 12.03 12.01 12.02 11.99 11.99 12.01 11.91 11.89
D10 8.73 8.72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.25 9.25 9.26 9.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.52 9.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.64 8.65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.59 8.62 8.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.53 8.62 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.24 8.28 8.41 8.42 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.18 8.27 8.36 8.30 8.30 8.30 8.30 8.31 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.99 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.99 7.98 7.99 8.00 7.99 8.00 7.99 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11
E8 7.90 7.90 7.93 7.96 7.95 7.95 7.94 7.95 7.95 7.96 7.96 7.95 7.96 7.95 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.00 8.00
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
AppendixD7 -Case5Results
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 10 21 14 18 20 16 16 19 10 19 16 12 13 21 11 9 21 8 18
PS-1a_2 - - 16 18 10 13 21 21 14 20 10 19 13 14 9 20 15 17 12 15
PS-1a_3 - - - 21 13 11 18 9 9 11 11 19 13 15 19 12 13 17 18 14
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 30 58 53 39 59
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 383 291 300 330 173 155
PS-2a_1 - - - - 143 156 139 166 146 353 318 320 348 285 336 283 299 314 167 147
D10 286 375 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 236 386 301 408 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 183 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 327 342 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 298 213 388 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 239 74 444 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 143 58 285 543 536 528 549 534 526 549 500 524 522 538 - - - - - -
E6 42 35 155 282 312 355 352 316 354 268 286 308 271 314 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 37 205 195 187 188 200 187 205 214 203 186 197 391 432 432 398 258 285
E8 37 42 34 36 41 35 33 31 35 37 28 37 33 36 167 155 135 178 86 133
GT5 118 223 264 347 241 226 205 213 219 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 29 80 84 106 60 44 46 76 56 151 161 132 156 118 130 150 144 123 63 68
GT7 41 78 89 133 64 60 52 78 64 154 174 144 140 122 141 143 159 127 79 61
GT8 43 78 90 144 59 46 55 72 62 159 170 142 148 114 147 136 165 140 92 66
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 5,853 7,926 7,950 7,929 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950
PS-1a_2 - - 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,696 8,065 8,018 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,857 8,019 7,925 7,926 7,442 8,434
PS-1a_3 - - - 7,950 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,949 7,925 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,926 7,926 7,926 7,950 7,925 7,918 7,926 7,944
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,656 7,792 7,535 7,668 7,825 7,577
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,372 2,953 3,026 3,215 2,551 2,065
PS-2a_1 - - - - 576 628 625 631 655 1,979 1,886 1,823 1,907 1,587 1,801 1,758 1,806 1,769 1,885 1,572
D10 2,674 5,066 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,824 3,546 1,736 2,448 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,694 3,318 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,234 5,174 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,929 6,559 4,015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,593 7,703 5,921 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,225 7,670 4,931 3,409 4,037 4,029 4,060 4,018 4,204 3,447 3,649 3,593 3,707 3,646 - - - - - -
E6 7,268 7,280 6,500 4,448 4,054 3,903 3,868 3,804 3,900 4,474 4,274 4,148 4,154 4,407 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,248 7,249 6,536 6,403 6,523 6,432 6,318 6,414 6,301 6,281 6,352 6,316 6,305 4,790 4,319 4,595 4,731 5,651 5,683
E8 7,412 7,412 7,413 7,438 7,413 7,414 7,414 7,436 7,411 7,413 7,414 7,438 7,414 7,413 6,786 6,875 6,873 6,523 6,184 6,126
GT5 869 1,579 1,264 1,771 891 896 813 905 900 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 246 448 352 529 223 192 214 376 280 758 777 713 763 570 606 702 641 501 448 381
GT7 346 502 466 615 271 270 324 411 282 882 985 818 857 657 625 755 814 665 747 429
GT8 319 479 439 647 255 236 312 388 258 882 964 789 907 632 633 771 813 676 878 500
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-1a_1 - 11.96 12.19 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.94 14.25 14.57 14.89 15.23 15.58 15.92 16.28 16.65 17.02 17.41 17.80
PS-1a_2 - - 12.19 12.47 12.75 13.04 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.24 15.58 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.03 17.40 17.80
PS-1a_3 - - - 12.47 12.75 13.03 13.33 13.63 13.93 14.25 14.57 14.90 15.23 15.58 15.93 16.28 16.65 17.03 17.42 17.80
PS-1a_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.93 16.28 16.65 17.03 17.41 17.80
PS-1b_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.92 16.29 16.65 17.02 17.43 17.80
PS-2a_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D10 12.04 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.04 12.28 12.57 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.04 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.27 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.27 12.56 12.85 13.13 13.43 13.73 14.04 14.35 14.68 15.01 15.35 15.69 16.06 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.28 12.56 12.84 13.14 13.42 13.75 14.05 14.36 14.69 15.01 15.36 15.71 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.28 12.55 12.84 13.13 13.42 13.72 14.03 14.35 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.03 16.40 16.77 17.15 17.53 17.93 18.34
E8 12.02 12.29 12.57 12.85 13.14 13.43 13.74 14.04 14.36 14.68 15.02 15.35 15.70 16.05 16.41 16.78 17.15 17.54 17.93 18.34
GT5 7.16 7.31 7.48 7.64 7.82 7.99 8.18 8.35 8.55 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.48 8.64 8.85 9.03 9.25 9.45 9.67 9.87 10.11 10.33 10.56 10.80 11.04 11.27 11.52 11.78 12.05 12.31 12.60 12.88
GT7 8.48 8.65 8.85 9.03 9.25 9.45 9.66 9.88 10.11 10.34 10.56 10.80 11.03 11.28 11.53 11.79 12.06 12.32 12.61 12.89
GT8 8.47 8.65 8.85 9.03 9.24 9.45 9.67 9.88 10.11 10.34 10.56 10.79 11.03 11.28 11.52 11.78 12.06 12.33 12.61 12.89
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D8
CASE 6 RESULTS


250,000 Case 6
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 6
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO LPG
BELCOPromodCase## Page1of19

220 Case 6
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 6
100
80
(MW)
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LPG Infrastructure $000 787 - 1,490 1,083 834 838 843 844 853 862 721 719 725 720 724 638 636 642 633 655 649
Debt Service - DSM $000 2,119 - 942 942 1,926 1,926 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 32,207 81,739 70,718 40,350 22,817 23,648 21,373 22,004 23,082 24,146 15,779 15,747 16,452 16,397 16,536 10,517 10,710 11,113 9,758 12,294 10,539
Fuel - New $000 40,739 - 10,617 29,823 42,437 43,063 43,959 44,791 45,279 45,744 54,354 55,572 56,364 57,938 58,970 65,514 67,317 68,513 70,705 70,828 72,674
Variable O&M - New $000 1,252 - 356 973 1,365 1,393 1,420 1,453 1,475 1,498 1,527 1,571 1,583 1,621 1,671 1,958 1,993 2,036 2,108 2,098 2,216
Fixed O&M - New $000 5,231 - 1,281 3,482 5,341 5,461 5,584 5,710 5,838 5,970 6,443 6,588 6,736 6,887 7,042 9,475 9,688 9,906 10,129 10,357 10,590
Renewable $000 6,827 4,167 4,602 5,660 5,908 6,131 6,384 6,650 6,951 7,222 7,530 7,853 8,220 8,549 8,923 9,316 9,762 10,162 10,617 11,094 11,636
DSM $000 8,673 131 2,489 2,755 5,420 5,716 8,674 9,093 9,798 10,301 11,209 11,817 12,953 13,689 15,124 16,017 17,831 18,902 21,147 22,433 25,218
TOTAL COSTS $000 134,961 125,932 124,701 130,569 132,798 134,173 122,568 124,949 127,770 130,342 133,756 136,084 139,332 142,117 145,340 154,002 158,498 161,881 165,645 170,467 174,114
$/MWh 199.3 189.4 187.3 195.5 198.2 199.7 181.9 184.8 188.4 191.7 196.1 198.9 203.0 206.5 210.5 222.4 228.2 232.4 237.1 243.3 247.7

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 23,594 - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 39,905 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_2 - - 40,803 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_3 - - - 41,721 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53,290 - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - 3,450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - 9,065 - 9,477 - 9,908 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 582 404 260 123 123 114 114 114 115 84 82 83 80 78 36 33 33 29 35 27
LFO GWH 55 101 24 26 24 17 18 19 18 4 4 3 3 3 9 10 10 8 10 9
LNG (CCHP / CHP) GWH - 16 16 31 31 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
LPG GWH - 109 293 401 401 399 400 397 394 438 440 438 440 441 480 481 480 485 475 481
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Total GWH 665 666 668 671 673 674 677 679 681 682 684 687 688 691 696 699 701 703 704 706

HFO % 88% 61% 39% 18% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4%
LFO % 8% 15% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
LNG (includes CHP) % 0% 2% 2% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
LPG % 0% 16% 44% 60% 60% 59% 59% 58% 58% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 69% 69% 68% 69% 67% 68%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
New Thermal GWH - 109 293 401 401 399 400 397 394 438 440 438 440 441 480 481 480 485 475 481
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
TOTAL ENERGY 661 644 643 626 625 608 607 606 604 602 601 599 598 597 599 597 596 595 592 590
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 22 25 44 48 67 70 73 77 80 83 87 90 94 97 101 104 108 112 116
System Load GWH 662 644 643 626 624 607 606 605 603 602 601 599 598 596 595 593 592 591 589 587
LOLH HOURS 32 5 1 4 6 - - 1 - - - - - - 10 18 26 - - -
Dump Energy GWH - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Emergency Energy GWH 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 - - - - - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 - - -
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 762 526 340 161 161 149 149 149 152 111 108 109 106 104 47 42 43 38 45 34
LFO BBL (000) 96 173 49 53 53 38 38 41 41 11 9 8 8 6 21 24 23 18 23 22
LNG GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 461 434 382 355 356 345 345 345 344 347 346 345 345 343 343 344 343 341 341 336
CO2 Intensity LBS/MWH 1,386 1,304 1,144 1,061 1,058 1,024 1,021 1,017 1,013 1,016 1,010 1,006 1,003 994 991 990 985 976 974 957
NOX TONS (000) 25 21 13 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY
New Thermal MW - 19 38 57 57 57 57 57 57 70 70 70 70 70 89 89 89 89 89 89
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 155 166 166 162 162 162 162 162 163 163 163 162 162 152 152 152 152 152 152
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 3 4 7 7 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 18
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 107 107 104 104 101 101 101 101 101 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98
Reserves MW 38.4 43.0 47.6 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 7,805 7,854 8,550 9,078 8,819 5,623 6,297 6,280 6,343 6,888 5,333
PS-3b_1 - 10,617 15,041 14,815 14,993 15,346 15,530 15,735 16,209 16,367 16,576 17,058 17,329 17,708 16,136 16,454 16,890 17,129 17,594 17,900
PS-3b_2 - - 14,783 13,892 14,249 14,526 15,035 15,169 14,876 15,504 16,300 15,429 16,234 17,332 15,433 15,682 16,012 16,283 16,413 16,851
PS-3b_3 - - - 13,730 13,821 14,088 14,227 14,376 14,659 14,678 14,842 15,327 15,298 15,110 14,829 15,090 15,128 16,519 14,844 17,435
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,492 13,794 14,203 14,431 15,089 15,156
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 356 492 480 488 500 507 516 535 542 550 570 581 596 534 544 560 569 585 596
PS-3b_2 - - 482 446 461 469 487 495 487 508 537 510 538 577 507 514 527 536 539 555
PS-3b_3 - - - 439 444 452 458 464 476 476 483 503 502 498 483 490 491 538 483 570
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 434 444 458 466 491 494
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 339 346 354 362 370 378 387 396 404 414 423
PS-3b_1 - 1,281 1,741 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_2 - - 1,741 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_3 - - - 1,780 1,820 1,861 1,903 1,946 1,990 2,035 2,081 2,127 2,175 2,224 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,274 2,325 2,378 2,431 2,486 2,542
PS-6a 463 473 484 494 506 517 529 540 553 565 578 591 604 618 632 646 660 675 690 706
PS-6b - - 173 176 180 184 189 193 197 202 206 211 215 220 225 230 236 241 246 252
PS-6c x2 - - 119 122 125 127 130 133 136 139 142 146 149 152 156 159 163 166 170 174

PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451 2,451
PS-3b_1 - 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145 4,145
PS-3b_2 - - 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238 4,238
PS-3b_3 - - - 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334 4,334
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535 5,535
PS-6a 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270
PS-6b - - 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996
PS-6c x2 - - 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 1,833 3,632 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 975 1,921 839 1,132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,221 2,276 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,366 4,125 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8,011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,412 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 3,932 5,114 3,230 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,447 5,741 5,076 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,782 7,573 3,443 5,158 5,485 5,714 5,677 5,816 6,290 4,041 3,994 4,705 4,163 3,847 - - - - - -
E6 11,606 9,501 4,111 3,800 4,087 4,000 3,823 4,150 4,674 5,146 4,811 4,939 5,030 6,112 - - - - - -
E7 12,342 12,923 9,738 3,310 3,470 2,965 3,327 3,521 3,129 3,146 3,494 3,784 3,756 3,877 3,240 2,777 3,058 2,338 2,469 2,052
E8 12,316 12,003 9,553 4,814 4,631 4,273 4,629 4,610 4,939 2,037 2,200 1,848 2,334 1,730 4,029 4,047 4,178 4,262 5,655 4,460
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,471 4,738 3,550 3,495 4,009 3,073 3,289 3,511 3,508 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 277 354 212 262 505 416 339 394 450 414 341 354 301 258 835 1,020 1,024 679 965 1,135
GT7 389 458 320 416 738 503 466 580 621 478 472 422 398 380 1,255 1,442 1,407 1,213 1,563 1,498
GT8 359 360 278 430 724 430 454 500 535 519 436 400 415 331 1,159 1,424 1,445 1,265 1,642 1,394

D10 141 285 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 71 142 62 83 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 86 163 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 183 326 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 661 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 367 456 287 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 512 510 448 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 952 693 313 464 489 504 495 502 536 341 332 386 337 306 - - - - - -
E6 1,140 884 374 344 366 355 335 360 401 436 402 407 408 489 - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,248 930 311 323 272 303 316 277 273 300 321 314 319 262 221 240 181 188 153
E8 1,249 1,165 916 456 434 397 425 418 443 180 192 160 198 145 332 328 334 334 436 338
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 81 158 118 116 133 101 107 113 112 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 9 12 7 9 17 14 11 13 15 14 11 11 10 8 26 31 31 20 28 33
GT7 13 16 11 14 25 17 16 19 21 16 15 14 13 12 39 44 42 36 46 43
GT8 12 12 10 15 25 15 15 17 18 17 14 13 13 10 36 44 44 38 48 40
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,585 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,155 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,552 10,029 10,570
PS-4a - 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226
PS-4c - - 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839

PS-4a - 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475
PS-4c - - 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 37.8 37.3 39.9 41.6 39.8 24.4 26.7 26.1 25.8 27.5 20.8
PS-3b_1 - 78.7 89.3 85.0 84.9 84.9 84.3 83.6 85.1 84.2 83.7 84.5 84.5 84.7 74.2 73.8 74.5 74.0 74.4 73.9
PS-3b_2 - - 87.5 79.0 80.0 79.6 80.9 80.1 77.3 79.1 81.6 75.7 78.3 82.0 70.5 69.7 70.0 69.7 68.6 68.9
PS-3b_3 - - - 77.7 77.1 76.8 76.1 75.2 75.6 74.0 73.4 74.5 72.9 70.9 67.1 66.6 65.4 70.0 61.5 70.8
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60.4 60.2 60.9 60.6 62.4 61.3
D10 19.1 37.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 14.9 29.3 12.5 16.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 11.7 21.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 24.9 43.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 34.5 42.0 25.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 51.2 49.9 42.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 63.2 45.1 19.9 28.8 29.7 30.0 28.8 28.5 29.8 18.5 17.7 20.0 17.1 15.2 - - - - - -
E6 75.8 57.5 23.8 21.3 22.2 21.1 19.5 20.4 22.3 23.7 21.4 21.1 20.8 24.3 - - - - - -
E7 82.7 81.1 59.2 19.3 19.6 16.2 17.6 17.9 15.4 14.9 15.9 16.6 16.0 15.9 12.8 10.5 11.2 8.2 8.4 6.6
E8 83.0 75.7 58.2 28.3 26.4 23.6 24.7 23.7 24.6 9.8 10.2 8.3 10.1 7.2 16.2 15.6 15.5 15.2 19.4 14.7
GT5 9.9 19.0 13.9 13.3 14.9 11.1 11.5 11.9 11.6 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.8 3.6 2.1 2.5 4.7 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.2 1.8 5.7 6.7 6.5 4.2 5.7 6.4
GT7 3.9 4.6 3.2 4.0 6.9 4.6 4.1 5.0 5.2 3.8 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.7 8.5 9.4 8.9 7.4 9.2 8.5
GT8 3.6 3.7 2.8 4.1 6.8 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.2 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.3 7.9 9.3 9.2 7.7 9.7 7.9
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 45.4 44.8 48.0 49.9 47.8 29.3 32.1 31.4 31.0 33.0 25.0
PS-3b_1 - 109.2 147.8 141.1 140.5 140.5 139.6 138.9 140.8 139.4 138.5 140.3 139.8 140.3 122.9 122.5 123.4 122.5 123.2 122.7
PS-3b_2 - - 144.9 131.2 132.5 131.8 134.0 133.0 128.1 130.9 135.1 125.6 129.6 135.8 116.7 115.8 115.9 115.4 113.6 114.3
PS-3b_3 - - - 129.0 127.6 127.1 125.9 124.9 125.2 122.6 121.6 123.7 120.7 117.4 111.2 110.5 108.2 115.8 101.8 117.5
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99.9 99.9 100.8 100.3 103.4 101.8
D10 11.7 23.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 5.9 11.6 4.9 6.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.1 13.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 15.3 26.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 65.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 30.5 37.2 22.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 42.6 41.5 35.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 79.2 56.5 24.9 36.2 37.2 37.5 36.1 35.8 37.4 23.2 22.1 25.2 21.5 19.1 - - - - - -
E6 94.9 72.0 29.8 26.8 27.9 26.4 24.4 25.6 27.9 29.7 26.8 26.5 26.0 30.4 - - - - - -
E7 103.6 101.6 74.1 24.2 24.6 20.3 22.0 22.5 19.3 18.6 20.0 20.9 20.0 19.9 16.0 13.2 14.0 10.3 10.5 8.4
E8 104.0 94.8 72.9 35.5 33.0 29.5 30.9 29.8 30.9 12.3 12.8 10.4 12.6 9.0 20.2 19.5 19.5 19.1 24.3 18.4
GT5 11.3 21.6 15.8 15.2 17.0 12.6 13.1 13.6 13.2 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 1.1 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.6 2.6 1.6 2.2 2.5
GT7 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.6 2.7 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 3.4 3.7 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.4
GT8 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.6 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 3.1 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.8 3.1
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PS-4a - 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PS-4c - - 31 39 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35
PS-4d - - 4 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
DSM-2b - 16 16 31 31 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7
PS-3b_1 - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_2 - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_3 - - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
D10 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
PS-4a - 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6
PS-4c - - 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6
PS-4d - - 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
DSM-2b - 2.2 2.2 4.5 4.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.3
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
N-2 14.3 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 43 47.6 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 560 553 592 617 588 367 403 393 389 414 314
PS-3b_1 - 912 1,235 1,187 1,182 1,182 1,176 1,171 1,185 1,174 1,168 1,181 1,177 1,180 1,054 1,052 1,058 1,051 1,057 1,053
PS-3b_2 - - 1,214 1,113 1,124 1,119 1,138 1,129 1,087 1,112 1,148 1,068 1,103 1,155 1,009 1,002 1,003 999 986 991
PS-3b_3 - - - 1,100 1,090 1,085 1,077 1,070 1,071 1,053 1,046 1,061 1,039 1,007 969 965 948 1,013 891 1,026
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 882 882 890 885 906 892
D10 102 202 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 54 107 46 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 68 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 132 230 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 561 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 262 320 196 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 363 359 309 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 653 474 209 305 314 316 304 301 315 195 186 212 181 161 - - - - - -
E6 774 594 250 225 234 222 205 215 234 249 225 223 218 256 - - - - - -
E7 823 808 592 196 199 164 178 182 157 152 163 171 163 162 130 108 114 84 85 68
E8 822 751 581 284 265 237 248 239 247 99 103 83 101 72 162 157 156 153 195 148
GT5 138 264 193 185 207 154 160 165 160 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 15 20 12 14 26 21 16 19 21 18 15 15 12 10 31 37 36 23 31 35
GT7 22 26 17 22 38 25 23 27 28 21 20 17 16 15 47 52 49 41 51 47
GT8 20 20 15 23 37 22 22 24 24 23 19 17 17 13 43 51 50 43 53 44
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b - 188 188 376 376 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564 564
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 12.33 12.35 12.34 12.36 12.31 12.53 12.53 12.54 12.55 12.53 12.54
PS-3b_1 - 8.35 8.35 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.42 8.42 8.41 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58
PS-3b_2 - - 8.38 8.49 8.48 8.49 8.49 8.48 8.49 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.51 8.51 8.64 8.66 8.65 8.66 8.68 8.67
PS-3b_3 - - - 8.52 8.54 8.54 8.55 8.57 8.56 8.59 8.60 8.58 8.61 8.58 8.72 8.73 8.76 8.75 8.76 8.73
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.82 8.83 8.83 8.83 8.77 8.76
D10 8.73 8.71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.25 9.25 9.26 9.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.52 9.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.64 8.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.59 8.60 8.60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.53 8.64 8.65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.24 8.38 8.41 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.41 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.43 - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.25 8.39 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.40 8.40 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 7.99 8.07 8.09 8.11 8.09 8.11 8.11 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.15 8.15 8.16
E8 7.90 7.92 7.96 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.03 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.03 8.03 8.03
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 222 180 235 198 227 317 292 272 301 214 185
PS-3b_1 - 14 8 23 24 26 14 17 20 17 19 21 14 12 21 34 26 29 21 33
PS-3b_2 - - 18 27 25 19 16 16 15 18 12 16 16 18 37 41 33 38 33 38
PS-3b_3 - - - 21 10 22 18 15 25 14 19 19 14 19 21 20 30 23 30 26
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 91 97 80 94 86 109
D10 286 335 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 236 318 278 364 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 183 332 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 327 291 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 298 190 458 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 239 84 324 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 143 80 367 357 363 336 320 307 282 333 310 289 301 296 - - - - - -
E6 42 43 202 351 359 359 322 352 326 334 355 335 329 317 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 152 240 243 270 282 262 308 271 267 254 266 249 247 199 219 215 131 122
E8 37 42 39 238 270 309 291 295 307 256 248 245 243 209 333 348 346 352 256 216
GT5 118 215 221 224 218 209 183 200 205 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 29 50 57 58 85 68 72 75 67 62 56 54 58 55 129 122 116 98 79 64
GT7 41 72 62 92 105 85 100 98 88 79 90 68 76 67 157 150 158 146 95 90
GT8 43 54 60 78 106 62 82 102 77 73 74 61 76 56 143 162 147 153 106 89
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - 4,635 4,612 4,920 5,151 4,850 3,200 3,507 3,434 3,404 3,607 2,741
PS-3b_1 - 5,792 7,844 7,868 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,866 7,851 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,844 7,844 7,810 7,818 7,820 7,789 7,815 7,804
PS-3b_2 - - 7,844 7,775 7,821 7,821 7,980 7,866 7,620 7,821 8,094 7,547 7,822 8,186 7,764 7,780 7,768 7,745 7,744 7,749
PS-3b_3 - - - 7,868 7,866 7,828 7,844 7,866 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,844 7,479 7,792 7,807 7,772 8,280 7,322 8,270
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,480 7,495 7,562 7,539 7,477 7,330
D10 2,674 4,877 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,824 3,514 1,588 2,076 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,694 3,138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,234 5,241 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8,110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,929 6,561 3,909 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,593 7,621 6,584 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,225 7,329 3,420 5,134 5,277 5,329 5,133 5,081 5,294 3,200 3,085 3,530 3,003 2,704 - - - - - -
E6 7,268 7,244 4,042 3,672 3,829 3,623 3,356 3,513 3,809 4,017 3,649 3,607 3,591 4,240 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,248 6,147 2,637 2,793 2,419 2,544 2,695 2,332 2,561 2,744 2,863 2,737 2,730 2,169 1,792 1,903 1,366 1,388 1,133
E8 7,412 7,412 7,396 4,490 4,304 3,791 3,965 3,851 3,889 1,633 1,647 1,354 1,632 1,141 2,603 2,524 2,490 2,518 3,189 2,480
GT5 869 1,665 1,218 1,170 1,304 971 1,009 1,044 1,012 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 246 314 184 222 414 332 263 296 328 292 233 234 192 159 497 587 569 364 499 566
GT7 346 407 277 352 606 401 361 436 453 337 322 279 254 234 747 830 782 650 808 747
GT8 319 320 241 364 595 343 352 376 390 366 298 264 265 204 690 820 803 678 849 695
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2c_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3b_1 - 3.26 3.33 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.63 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.15 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3b_2 - - 3.33 3.40 3.48 3.55 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.88 3.97 4.06 4.15 4.25 4.35 4.44 4.54 4.65 4.75 4.86
PS-3b_3 - - - 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.16 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3b_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
D10 12.04 12.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.04 12.27 12.57 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.04 12.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.27 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.27 12.56 12.83 13.12 13.42 13.72 14.03 14.35 14.68 15.00 15.34 15.69 16.05 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.28 12.56 12.85 13.14 13.43 13.74 14.04 14.36 14.68 15.01 15.36 15.70 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.28 12.55 12.85 13.14 13.44 13.74 14.03 14.36 14.68 15.02 15.34 15.70 16.04 16.38 16.78 17.14 17.53 17.94 18.33
E8 12.02 12.28 12.56 12.84 13.14 13.44 13.74 14.04 14.37 14.69 15.01 15.37 15.70 16.04 16.41 16.79 17.16 17.54 17.94 18.32
GT5 7.16 7.31 7.48 7.65 7.82 7.99 8.17 8.34 8.54 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.48 8.64 8.82 9.02 9.25 9.45 9.65 9.87 10.11 10.33 10.52 10.80 11.04 11.27 11.52 11.79 12.06 12.32 12.62 12.89
GT7 8.48 8.64 8.83 9.03 9.25 9.45 9.65 9.86 10.10 10.33 10.54 10.79 11.03 11.27 11.53 11.80 12.05 12.34 12.62 12.89
GT8 8.47 8.64 8.83 9.03 9.24 9.45 9.65 9.86 10.11 10.32 10.55 10.79 11.03 11.27 11.52 11.80 12.06 12.34 12.63 12.89
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2b
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix D9
CASE 7 RESULTS


250,000 Case 7
200,000
150,000
$000
100,000
50,000
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 7
700
600
500
GWh
400
300
200
100
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
HFO LFO LNG

220 Case 7
200
180
160
140
MW
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Case 7
100
80
(MW)
60
40
20
0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
Levelized 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
TOTAL DEMAND GWH 677 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
Debt Service - T & D $000 8,100 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - LNG Infrastructure $000 354 - - - 766 784 857 857 908 924 385 144 - - 259 - - - - - -
Debt Service - DSM $000 657 - - - 371 371 759 759 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164
OPERATING COSTS
Fuel - Existing $000 41,093 81,774 87,546 85,878 28,071 29,087 27,458 27,838 25,617 26,558 22,832 22,419 21,732 21,605 25,138 10,329 11,353 12,670 12,289 15,611 13,379
Fuel - New $000 41,164 - - - 45,898 47,050 47,719 49,063 49,979 51,149 55,992 58,487 60,973 63,092 61,191 78,607 80,449 81,223 83,629 84,302 87,670
Variable O&M - New $000 1,072 - - - 1,289 1,314 1,332 1,362 1,382 1,411 1,447 1,469 1,502 1,533 1,563 1,881 1,919 1,965 2,042 2,018 2,133
Fixed O&M - New $000 4,389 - - - 4,861 4,970 5,082 5,196 5,313 5,433 5,911 6,044 6,180 6,319 6,461 8,676 8,871 9,071 9,275 9,484 9,697
Renewable $000 6,827 4,167 4,602 5,660 5,908 6,131 6,384 6,650 6,951 7,222 7,530 7,853 8,220 8,549 8,923 9,316 9,761 10,162 10,617 11,094 11,636
DSM $000 7,427 131 316 489 2,731 3,009 5,751 6,167 9,444 9,998 10,997 11,609 12,754 13,510 14,935 15,930 17,820 18,977 21,311 22,673 25,541
TOTAL COSTS $000 138,936 125,982 122,214 133,352 136,217 138,291 126,288 128,929 131,670 134,855 138,760 141,665 144,956 148,217 152,364 161,658 167,142 171,170 176,255 182,465 187,212
$/MWh 205.1 189.5 183.6 199.7 203.3 205.8 187.4 190.7 194.2 198.3 203.4 207.1 211.2 215.4 220.7 233.5 240.7 245.7 252.3 260.4 266.3

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
Generation
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 18,608 - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - 38,089 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_2 - - - 38,089 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_3 - - - 38,089 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48,651 - - - - -
PS-4a - 34,955 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-4c - - 139,822 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Battery
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - 8,625 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - 3,450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T&D
Upgrades 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Infrastructure
LPG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DSM
Commercial PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCHP / CHP (LNG) - - - 3,571 - 3,733 - 3,903 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
GENERATION MIX
HFO GWH 580 532 470 152 151 139 141 129 128 127 120 112 109 122 36 35 42 40 46 37
LFO GWH 57 97 123 32 30 27 24 19 20 4 4 4 3 3 8 10 9 8 12 10
LNG GWH - - - 379 378 375 375 372 371 387 393 400 403 389 470 467 461 463 453 460
LNG (CCHP / CHP) GWH - - - 18 18 37 37 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Tynes Bay - WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Utility PV GWH - 6 38 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 42
Total GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 677 679 681 682 684 686 688 690 694 696 698 700 703 704

HFO % 87% 80% 70% 23% 23% 21% 21% 19% 19% 19% 18% 16% 16% 18% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5%
LFO % 9% 15% 18% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
LNG (includes CHP) % 0% 0% 0% 59% 59% 61% 61% 63% 63% 65% 65% 66% 67% 64% 76% 75% 74% 74% 72% 73%
Tynes Bay - WTE % 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Utility PV % 0% 1% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
BELCO
ENERGY
New Thermal GWH - - - 379 378 375 375 372 371 387 393 400 403 389 470 467 461 463 453 460
Existing WTE GWH 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
TOTAL ENERGY 661 659 658 639 637 618 617 597 596 594 593 591 590 588 588 587 585 584 583 580
Gross Energy GWH 665 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 697 699 701 703
DSM GWH 3 6 10 32 35 56 60 82 85 88 92 95 99 102 106 110 113 116 120 124
System Load GWH 662 659 658 638 637 618 616 596 595 594 592 591 590 588 587 585 584 582 581 579
LOLH HOURS 22 5 4 6 12 3 - 4 - 6 - - - 2 - 9 13 3 15 8
Dump Energy GWH - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Emergency Energy GWH 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
FUEL
HFO BBL (000) 760 695 610 197 197 181 184 168 168 166 157 147 142 159 46 46 54 51 59 48
LFO BBL (000) 98 171 216 66 67 60 53 43 44 10 9 9 7 8 20 25 22 20 28 23
LNG GBTU - - - 3,193 3,187 3,161 3,161 3,143 3,137 3,328 3,414 3,494 3,540 3,373 4,194 4,165 4,082 4,081 4,001 4,042
LNG (CHP) GBTU - - - 162 162 324 324 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
EMISSIONS / RPS
CO2 TONS (000) 461 459 433 334 334 331 329 324 324 318 318 317 316 316 308 308 307 304 307 302
NOX TONS (000) 26 25 23 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6
SOX TONS (000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FPM TONS (000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY
New Thermal MW - - - 52 52 52 52 52 52 66 66 66 66 66 83 83 83 83 83 83
Existing WTE MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
TOTAL CAPACITY 157 148 149 160 156 157 157 157 157 158 158 158 158 158 146 146 146 146 146 146
PEAK DEMAND MW 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116
DSM MW 1 1 2 5 5 8 9 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 19
Peak (net of DSM) MW 109 109 109 106 106 103 103 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 97
Reserves MW 38.4 38.4 38.4 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 3,091 4,921 6,385 7,461 4,691 8,690 8,570 7,072 6,076 7,264 5,648
PS-3e_1 - - - 15,628 15,980 16,299 16,339 17,509 17,588 18,274 17,842 19,648 19,281 19,595 18,863 19,382 20,063 20,459 20,833 22,817
PS-3e_2 - - - 15,520 16,000 16,322 17,025 16,604 17,387 18,055 19,000 17,837 18,977 20,122 18,193 18,756 19,418 19,941 20,655 21,020
PS-3e_3 - - - 14,750 15,070 15,098 15,699 15,867 16,174 16,572 16,724 17,103 17,373 16,784 17,353 17,846 18,287 20,317 18,137 21,093
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15,509 15,895 16,383 16,836 17,413 17,093
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - 440 448 457 455 487 488 503 492 544 535 546 514 523 539 544 552 602
PS-3e_2 - - - 438 449 458 474 461 481 496 524 493 525 559 492 504 518 529 544 549
PS-3e_3 - - - 411 418 417 432 435 442 448 453 466 473 459 465 475 483 534 472 545
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 409 416 426 435 450 437
PS-6a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-6c x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425 435 444
PS-3e_1 - - - 1,620 1,657 1,694 1,732 1,771 1,811 1,852 1,893 1,936 1,980 2,024 2,070 2,116 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-3e_2 - - - 1,620 1,657 1,694 1,732 1,771 1,811 1,852 1,893 1,936 1,980 2,024 2,070 2,116 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-3e_3 - - - 1,620 1,657 1,694 1,732 1,771 1,811 1,852 1,893 1,936 1,980 2,024 2,070 2,116 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,070 2,116 2,164 2,212 2,262 2,313
PS-6a 463 473 484 494 506 517 529 540 553 565 578 591 604 618 632 646 660 675 690 706
PS-6b - - 173 176 180 184 189 193 197 202 206 211 215 220 225 230 236 241 246 252
PS-6c x2 - - 119 122 125 127 130 133 136 139 142 146 149 152 156 159 163 166 170 174

PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933
PS-3e_1 - - - 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956
PS-3e_2 - - - 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956
PS-3e_3 - - - 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956 3,956
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,054 5,054 5,054 5,054 5,054 5,054
PS-6a 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270
PS-6b - - 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996
PS-6c x2 - - 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398 398
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 1,917 3,157 4,288 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,057 1,737 2,422 1,213 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,283 2,179 3,031 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 2,550 3,424 4,055 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8,001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,776 8,981 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 4,034 5,007 5,638 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 5,507 6,263 6,601 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 9,978 10,914 10,993 4,534 4,959 5,350 5,341 5,700 6,146 6,000 5,464 5,582 5,848 5,450 - - - - - -
E6 11,640 12,293 12,677 3,680 3,788 4,032 3,617 3,866 3,967 4,338 4,537 4,085 3,657 7,366 - - - - - -
E7 12,342 13,160 13,542 6,343 6,479 5,391 5,906 4,794 4,527 4,960 5,022 4,972 4,917 4,644 3,775 3,948 5,359 5,005 4,118 3,457
E8 12,319 13,217 13,562 6,395 6,403 5,775 6,696 6,024 6,422 6,289 6,147 5,855 6,194 6,449 3,470 3,443 3,729 3,921 6,543 5,670
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 2,371 5,133 6,410 4,495 5,423 4,853 4,711 3,742 4,222 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 268 626 819 381 527 557 428 428 278 359 323 318 288 332 724 1,049 857 763 1,219 1,228
GT7 385 763 968 536 775 793 612 533 517 456 481 498 343 462 1,164 1,488 1,382 1,306 1,899 1,591
GT8 346 689 873 495 733 707 528 531 479 429 444 422 357 435 1,196 1,424 1,343 1,293 1,832 1,434

D10 147 248 336 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 77 129 179 89 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 90 157 218 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 198 271 320 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 611 676 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 376 447 500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 518 562 585 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 971 1,017 1,016 408 442 472 467 492 524 505 454 458 473 435 - - - - - -
E6 1,144 1,158 1,187 333 339 358 317 336 340 367 379 337 297 589 - - - - - -
E7 1,244 1,271 1,301 598 605 498 539 433 404 436 436 426 415 386 305 314 420 385 312 258
E8 1,250 1,285 1,312 606 601 536 616 547 577 557 537 505 527 542 285 278 297 307 504 429
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 78 172 214 149 179 159 153 121 135 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 9 22 28 13 18 19 14 14 9 12 11 10 9 10 22 32 26 23 36 36
GT7 13 26 33 18 26 27 21 18 17 15 16 16 11 14 36 45 42 39 56 46
GT8 12 24 30 17 25 24 18 18 16 14 14 14 11 14 37 44 40 38 54 41
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
D10 136 139 143 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 88 90 92 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 136 139 143 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 136 139 143 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 317 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 291 297 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 197 201 206 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 185 189 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E6 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 - - - - - -
E7 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
E8 279 285 291 298 304 311 318 325 333 340 348 356 364 372 380 389 398 407 416 425
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 287 293 300 307 314 321 328 335 343 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT7 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71
GT8 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

D10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D15 185 185 185 185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT3F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GT8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT COSTS ($000)
Plant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Renewable Energy
WTE 4,167 4,376 4,595 4,842 5,065 5,319 5,584 5,886 6,157 6,465 6,788 7,154 7,484 7,858 8,251 8,696 9,097 9,551 10,029 10,570
PS-4a - 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226
PS-4c - - 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839

PS-4a - 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475
PS-4c - - 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122 10,122

T&D 28,055 15,585 16,090 15,033 14,523 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPACITY FACTOR (%)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 11.8 18.4 23.5 27.0 16.5 29.4 28.0 22.6 18.8 21.8 16.4
PS-3e_1 - - - 85.6 85.5 85.2 83.0 86.6 85.1 85.8 82.2 88.7 85.4 85.3 78.5 78.0 78.7 77.8 77.2 82.1
PS-3e_2 - - - 85.2 85.7 85.5 86.6 82.1 84.1 84.7 87.5 80.2 83.9 87.3 75.2 75.1 75.7 75.6 76.1 74.9
PS-3e_3 - - - 80.0 79.8 77.9 79.0 77.4 77.2 76.5 75.7 75.8 75.6 71.7 71.1 70.8 70.6 76.3 66.0 74.3
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62.5 62.0 62.2 62.1 62.8 59.6
D10 20.0 32.9 43.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 16.1 26.5 36.1 17.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.2 20.8 28.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 26.8 36.0 41.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 58.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 61.2 66.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 35.4 41.1 45.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 51.7 55.0 56.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 64.5 66.1 64.6 25.3 26.9 28.1 27.1 27.9 29.2 27.5 24.2 23.8 24.1 21.6 - - - - - -
E6 76.0 75.2 75.4 20.6 20.6 21.2 18.4 19.0 18.9 19.9 20.1 17.4 15.1 29.3 - - - - - -
E7 82.7 82.7 82.7 37.1 36.8 29.6 31.4 24.6 22.5 23.7 23.2 22.1 21.1 19.2 14.9 14.9 19.5 17.6 13.9 11.2
E8 83.0 83.5 83.3 37.6 36.5 31.9 35.8 31.0 32.1 30.3 28.6 26.2 26.8 26.9 13.9 13.2 13.8 14.0 22.4 18.6
GT5 9.5 20.6 25.1 17.1 20.1 17.5 16.5 12.7 13.9 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 2.7 6.3 8.1 3.7 4.9 5.1 3.8 3.7 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.3 4.9 6.9 5.4 4.7 7.2 7.0
GT7 3.9 7.7 9.6 5.2 7.3 7.2 5.4 4.6 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.5 3.3 7.9 9.8 8.8 8.0 11.2 9.0
GT8 3.5 7.0 8.6 4.8 6.9 6.4 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.6 3.1 8.1 9.3 8.5 7.9 10.8 8.1
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
GENERATION (GWH)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 14.8 23.3 29.7 34.1 20.8 37.0 35.5 28.5 23.8 27.5 20.8
PS-3e_1 - - - 129.4 128.8 128.4 125.1 130.9 128.3 129.3 123.9 134.0 128.7 128.5 118.3 117.8 118.6 117.2 116.3 124.1
PS-3e_2 - - - 128.7 129.1 128.8 130.4 124.0 126.7 127.6 131.8 121.2 126.4 131.6 113.3 113.4 114.1 113.9 114.6 113.1
PS-3e_3 - - - 120.9 120.2 117.4 119.0 117.0 116.2 115.3 114.0 114.5 113.9 108.0 107.2 107.0 106.3 115.0 99.4 112.2
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 94.2 93.7 93.8 93.6 94.7 90.0
D10 12.2 20.1 26.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 6.4 10.5 14.2 6.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.5 12.7 17.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 16.4 22.0 25.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 62.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 60.1 65.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 31.3 36.4 39.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 43.1 45.8 46.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 80.8 82.8 80.9 31.8 33.7 35.2 34.0 35.1 36.5 34.4 30.3 29.9 30.2 27.1 - - - - - -
E6 95.2 94.2 94.5 25.9 25.8 26.6 23.1 23.9 23.7 25.0 25.2 21.9 18.9 36.7 - - - - - -
E7 103.6 103.5 103.6 46.6 46.1 37.1 39.3 30.8 28.1 29.7 29.1 27.8 26.4 24.1 18.6 18.7 24.5 22.0 17.4 14.0
E8 104.0 104.6 104.4 47.2 45.7 39.9 44.8 39.0 40.2 38.0 35.8 32.9 33.5 33.7 17.4 16.6 17.3 17.5 28.1 23.4
GT5 10.8 23.5 28.6 19.6 22.9 19.9 18.8 14.5 15.8 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 1.1 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.9 2.7 2.1 1.8 2.8 2.8
GT7 1.5 3.1 3.8 2.0 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.3 3.1 3.9 3.5 3.2 4.4 3.6
GT8 1.4 2.8 3.4 1.9 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.2 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.1 4.3 3.2
Existing WTE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PS-4a - 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PS-4c - - 31 39 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35
PS-4d - - 4 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
DSM-2d - - - 18 18 37 37 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 3 6 10 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 44 47 51 54 58 61 65 69
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
CAPACITY (MW)
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
PS-3e_1 - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
PS-3e_2 - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
PS-3e_3 - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
D10 7.0 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 7.0 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 7.0 7.0 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 11.2 11.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 10.1 10.1 10.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E6 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 - - - - - -
E7 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
E8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
GT5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
GT8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Existing WTE 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
PS-4a - 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6
PS-4c - - 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6
PS-4d - - 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
DSM-2d - - - 2.5 2.5 4.9 4.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.3
Reserve Margin
N-1 14.3 14.3 14.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
N-2 14.3 14.3 14.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
N-3 14.3 14.3 14.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
Tynes Bay 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Total 38.4 38.4 38.4 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 184 287 366 419 259 463 444 355 297 345 260
PS-3e_1 - - - 1,087 1,082 1,080 1,053 1,101 1,079 1,086 1,042 1,126 1,082 1,080 1,006 1,003 1,008 998 989 1,052
PS-3e_2 - - - 1,080 1,084 1,082 1,097 1,044 1,067 1,073 1,109 1,022 1,065 1,109 971 971 976 973 980 969
PS-3e_3 - - - 1,026 1,021 1,000 1,012 998 992 985 976 980 975 925 926 924 919 992 861 972
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 827 823 823 822 826 788
D10 107 176 233 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 59 97 132 64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 71 121 165 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 142 191 220 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 519 562 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 269 313 343 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 367 392 401 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 666 683 669 268 284 296 286 295 308 290 255 252 254 228 - - - - - -
E6 777 769 771 217 217 223 194 200 199 210 212 184 159 308 - - - - - -
E7 823 823 824 375 371 299 317 248 227 240 234 224 214 194 152 153 200 180 142 115
E8 822 827 825 378 366 320 359 312 322 304 287 264 269 270 140 133 139 141 226 188
GT5 132 286 348 238 279 243 229 176 193 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 15 35 45 20 27 28 21 20 13 16 14 13 12 13 27 38 30 26 40 38
GT7 21 43 53 28 40 40 30 25 24 20 21 21 14 18 43 54 48 44 62 50
GT8 19 38 47 26 38 35 26 25 22 19 19 17 14 17 45 51 47 43 59 45
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d - - - 162 162 324 324 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 12.39 12.35 12.32 12.29 12.42 12.52 12.51 12.48 12.49 12.52 12.53
PS-3e_1 - - - 8.40 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.41 8.51 8.52 8.50 8.52 8.50 8.48
PS-3e_2 - - - 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.41 8.42 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.43 8.42 8.43 8.56 8.56 8.56 8.54 8.55 8.57
PS-3e_3 - - - 8.49 8.49 8.52 8.50 8.53 8.53 8.54 8.56 8.56 8.56 8.57 8.64 8.63 8.65 8.63 8.66 8.67
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.78 8.78 8.78 8.77 8.73 8.76
D10 8.73 8.72 8.72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 9.52 9.52 9.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 8.64 8.65 8.65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 8.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 8.64 8.64 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 8.59 8.60 8.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 8.53 8.56 8.62 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 8.23 8.24 8.26 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.43 8.42 8.42 8.43 8.42 8.43 8.42 8.42 - - - - - -
E6 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.39 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 - - - - - -
E7 7.95 7.95 7.95 8.04 8.04 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.06 8.06 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.07 8.17 8.17 8.18 8.17 8.17 8.17
E8 7.90 7.90 7.90 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.02 8.02 8.00 8.04 8.04 8.04 8.04 8.04 8.04
GT5 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 12.19 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT7 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
GT8 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 271 319 310 318 410 296 307 370 307 178 154
PS-3e_1 - - - 21 14 13 14 21 30 27 17 16 32 23 22 26 25 26 13 23
PS-3e_2 - - - 13 18 15 18 12 18 22 25 18 21 15 26 29 26 40 17 26
PS-3e_3 - - - 23 16 21 17 17 10 16 21 21 18 20 16 30 27 16 17 15
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90 86 88 94 100 126
D10 312 305 343 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 260 355 438 379 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 213 278 447 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 333 340 354 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 20 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 288 217 117 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 226 133 46 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 132 82 12 423 440 388 396 394 360 378 400 409 413 252 - - - - - -
E6 42 35 29 337 343 289 319 320 304 388 338 290 280 318 - - - - - -
E7 49 55 37 200 222 220 224 220 254 299 277 255 298 341 388 321 208 198 154 131
E8 37 42 33 206 207 239 220 239 233 279 237 283 277 259 312 284 305 375 271 248
GT5 122 218 385 276 320 254 252 211 202 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 25 79 141 79 99 95 84 70 57 55 61 56 37 54 109 127 98 90 70 75
GT7 41 94 167 93 132 114 113 82 85 73 86 81 57 70 162 150 143 119 101 84
GT8 44 95 153 90 124 104 97 70 81 65 71 69 55 61 157 157 140 119 100 75
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - 1,478 2,282 2,886 3,282 2,093 3,846 3,677 2,925 2,442 2,863 2,169
PS-3e_1 - - - 7,868 7,853 7,844 7,684 8,026 7,842 7,844 7,570 8,141 7,844 7,844 7,837 7,850 7,816 7,818 7,648 8,034
PS-3e_2 - - - 7,775 7,821 7,821 7,980 7,661 7,821 7,821 8,094 7,547 7,821 8,186 7,819 7,817 7,822 7,739 7,844 7,820
PS-3e_3 - - - 7,868 7,859 7,834 7,844 7,866 7,842 7,844 7,844 7,868 7,844 7,470 7,818 7,771 7,786 8,300 7,351 8,337
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,559 7,495 7,495 7,471 7,324 7,101
D10 2,807 4,539 5,983 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 1,978 3,282 4,371 2,240 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 1,777 3,050 4,092 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 3,461 4,843 5,771 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 7,733 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 7,488 8,112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 5,099 6,391 7,373 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 6,692 7,422 8,269 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 7,326 7,690 7,900 4,471 4,726 4,935 4,791 4,913 5,126 4,863 4,254 4,215 4,228 3,746 - - - - - -
E6 7,268 7,280 7,280 3,580 3,576 3,693 3,207 3,266 3,263 3,476 3,516 3,031 2,615 5,072 - - - - - -
E7 7,246 7,248 7,249 4,622 4,593 3,814 4,036 3,161 2,931 3,130 3,065 3,029 2,963 2,606 2,572 2,599 3,444 3,061 2,434 1,971
E8 7,412 7,412 7,413 5,728 5,657 4,905 5,474 4,733 4,880 4,656 4,486 4,214 4,272 3,976 2,398 2,292 2,368 2,421 3,812 3,241
GT5 834 1,804 2,199 1,505 1,764 1,534 1,445 1,112 1,218 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 238 556 710 322 433 445 332 321 203 253 221 210 184 205 431 604 476 409 630 612
GT7 342 678 839 453 636 633 474 400 377 322 328 329 219 285 693 857 768 700 982 793
GT8 307 612 757 419 603 565 409 398 349 303 303 279 228 268 712 820 746 693 947 715
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total
Unit Name 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
PS-2d_1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS-3e_1 - - - 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.16 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3e_2 - - - 3.40 3.48 3.55 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.88 3.97 4.06 4.15 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.65 4.75 4.86
PS-3e_3 - - - 3.40 3.48 3.56 3.64 3.72 3.80 3.89 3.97 4.06 4.16 4.25 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.85
PS-3e_4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.35 4.44 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.86
D10 12.04 12.30 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D14 12.04 12.30 12.56 12.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D3 12.04 12.29 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8 12.03 12.29 12.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E1 10.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E2 10.18 10.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E3 12.01 12.28 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E4 12.02 12.29 12.56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E5 12.01 12.28 12.55 12.84 13.13 13.42 13.73 14.03 14.34 14.67 15.00 15.34 15.68 16.04 - - - - - -
E6 12.02 12.29 12.56 12.86 13.14 13.44 13.75 14.07 14.37 14.69 15.02 15.36 15.71 16.05 - - - - - -
E7 12.01 12.28 12.55 12.84 13.12 13.42 13.72 14.05 14.36 14.68 15.01 15.35 15.70 16.04 16.40 16.78 17.15 17.51 17.92 18.34
E8 12.02 12.29 12.57 12.84 13.13 13.43 13.73 14.04 14.36 14.68 15.02 15.35 15.70 16.05 16.41 16.77 17.16 17.55 17.93 18.33
GT5 7.16 7.32 7.48 7.64 7.82 7.98 8.17 8.36 8.54 - - - - - - - - - - -
GT6 8.47 8.66 8.85 9.04 9.25 9.44 9.65 9.90 10.10 10.33 10.56 10.80 11.04 11.28 11.53 11.78 12.05 12.34 12.60 12.89
GT7 8.47 8.66 8.85 9.03 9.24 9.44 9.64 9.89 10.08 10.33 10.58 10.79 11.04 11.28 11.52 11.79 12.05 12.34 12.61 12.89
GT8 8.47 8.66 8.85 9.03 9.24 9.43 9.64 9.90 10.08 10.33 10.57 10.79 11.05 11.28 11.52 11.79 12.05 12.34 12.61 12.89
Existing WTE
PS-4a
PS-4c
PS-4d
DSM-2d
DSM-EE/EC (0.5%)
Reserve Margin
N-1
N-2
N-3
Tynes Bay
Total

Appendix E
QUALITATIVE & QUANTITATIVE SCORING
Appendix E1
BELCO2016IRP
QualitativeScoringofCandidateResourceTypes
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EnergyEfficiency/ BatteryStorage Thermal UtilitySolarPV ResidentialSolar DistributedSolar OffshoreWind ThermalResourcesThermalResources
DemandSide forSpinning ResourcesNatural withBattery ThermalandPV PV withBattery Liquefied FuelOil
Management Reserve Gas/FuelOil Storage Storage PetroleumGas
SupplyQuality EnvironmentalSustainability SecurityandCostResilience Logistics EconomicDevelopment
Page 1 of 3
BELCO2016IRP Appendix E1
QualitativeScoringofCandidateResourceTypes
Energy Thermal Offshore Thermal

Efficiency/ BatteryStorage Resources UtilitySolarPV Residential Windwith Resources Thermal
Ln. DemandSide forSpinning NaturalGas/Fuel withBattery SolarThermal Distributed Battery Liquefied Resources
No. QualitativeFactor MaxScore Management Reserve Oil Storage andPV SolarPV Storage PetroleumGas FuelOil
1 SupplyQuality 20 5 10 20 5 0 0 5 20 20
2 EnvironmentalSustainability 20 20 20 10 20 20 20 20 10 0
3 SecurityandCostResilience 20 20 20 10 20 20 20 20 5 0
4 Logistics 20 20 20 10 15 15 15 10 5 20
5 EconomicDevelopment 20 5 0 17.5 5 5 5 5 15 10
6 TOTALSCORE 100 70 70 67.5 65 60 60 60 55 50
Page 2 of 3
BELCO2016IRP
Appendix E1
QualitativeEvaluationMatrix
ThermalResourcesNaturalGas/ ThermalResourcesLiquefied EnergyEfficiency/DemandSide
QualitativeFactor FactorDescription MaxScore ThermalResourcesFuelOil FuelOil PetroleumGas Management ResidentialSolarThermalandPV DistributedSolarPV UtilitySolarPVwithBatteryStorage OffshoreWindwithBatteryStorage BatteryStorageforSpinningReserve
Thedegreetowhichtheassetenhancesor Unitsarebasedonmature Unitsarebasedonmature Unitsarebasedonmaturetechnology Energyabatementissubjectto Resourcepoweroutputis Resourcepoweroutputis Resourceispairedwithbattery Resourceispairedwithbattery Resourcehasafastresponsetime
reinforcessystemreliabilityasafirmresourceand technologyforoperationasfirm, technologyforoperationasfirm, foroperationasfirm,dispatchable reliabilityofdemandresponse intermittentandnotdispatchable. intermittentandnotdispatchable. energystoragesystemtoaddress energystoragesystemtoaddress andprovideshighlevelsofreliability
isaproventechnologydirectlyundertheutilitys dispatchableresourcesproviding dispatchableresourcesproviding resourcesprovidinghighquality, equipmentandabilitytoachieve intermittentoutputbutremainsnon intermittentoutputbutremainsnon andsupplyquality.Itrequirestime
1 SupplyQuality
controlasitrelatestomeetingsystemenergyand highquality,reliablepower. highquality,reliablepower. reliablepower. estimatedsavingsfromenergy dispatchable. dispatchable. torechargeaftereachoperation.
demandrequirements. efficiencymeasures.
Score 20 20 20 20 5 0 0 5 5 10
Thedegreetowhichtheassetwillcausea Resourcewillnotcauseareduction Operationonnaturalgasasa OperationonLPGasaprimaryfuelwill MeasuresproducenoGHGemissions. ResourceproducesnoGHGemissions. ResourceproducesnoGHGemissions. ResourceproducesnoGHGemissions. ResourceproducesnoGHGemissions. ResourceproducesnoGHG
reductionintheemissionofGreenHouseGasesby inGHGemissions. primaryfuelwillcauseareductionin causeareductioninGHGemissions emissions.
2 EnvironmentalSustainability
BELCO. GHGemissionsrelativetobusiness relativetobusinessasusual.
asusual.
Score 20 0 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20
Thedegreetowhichtheassetcontributesto Resourcewillnotcontributeto Dualfuelresourcewillincreasefuel OperationonLPGwillincreasefuel Measuresarenotdependentonany Fuelsourceisrenewableand Fuelsourceisrenewableand Fuelsourceisrenewableand Fuelsourceisrenewableand Resourceisnotdependentonany
resource/fueldiversitytomakeBermudaresilient resource/fueldiversity. diversityandcostresiliency. diversityandcostresiliency. fuelsource. availableatnocost. availableatnocost. availableatnocost. availableatnocost. fuelsource.
3 SecurityandCostResilience
toshockscausedbydramaticchangesinthecost
andavailabilityoffuel.
Score 20 0 10 5 20 20 20 20 20 20
Thedegreetowhichtheassetprovidesforeaseof Minimallogisticalissuesare Significantgasfuelhandlingand Significantgasfuelhandling Minimallogisticalissuesare Somechallengesareanticipatedin Somechallengesareanticipatedin Aprimarypotentialsitehasbeen Theextensiveshallowoffshore Nositingissuesareanticipated.
logisticsandimplementation anticipated.Thiswouldbearepeat transportationinfrastructureis infrastructureisrequired,creating anticipated. sitingtheseinstallations. sitingtheseinstallations. identifiedasbeingavailable. watersofBermudaoffergood
ofaprocessthatisveryfamiliarto required,creatingpermittingand permittingandsitingchallenges. potentialforinstallation.
4 Logistics BELCO. sitingchallenges. Transportation/handlingriskarehigher
thanliquefiednaturalgas.Resourceto
becolocatedatgasstoragefacility
site.
Score 20 20 10 5 20 15 15 15 10 20
Thedegreetowhichtheassetcontributestothe Constructionjobswouldbecreated ConstructionaswellaslongtermO ConstructionaswellaslongtermO& Jobsassociatedwithenergyauditsand Jobsassociatedwithequipment Jobsassociatedwithequipment Jobsassociatedwithplant Jobsassociatedwithplant Minimalshorttermjobsassociated
economicDevelopmentforBermudawithafocus &Mjobswouldbecreated.Would Mjobswouldbecreated. equipmentinstallationswouldbe installationswouldbecreated. installationswouldbecreated. constructionwouldbecreated. constructionwouldbecreated. withinstallationwouldbecreated.
onjobcreation. createpotentialforpipedgas created.
5 EconomicDevelopment distribution.
Score 20 10 17.5 15 5 5 5 5 5 0
TOTALSCORE 100 50 67.5 55 70 60 60 65 60 70
Page 3 of 3
BELCO2016IRP Appendix E2
CombinedQuantitativeandQualitativeScoring
Total
Case LevelizedCost RawCost Weighted NonCost RawNon WeightedNon Weighted
No. ($M) Score CostScore Score CostScore CostScore Score Rank
1 213.65 89.3% 62.5% 50.6% 78% 23.4% 85.9% 7
2 214.65 88.9% 62.2% 64.2% 99% 29.7% 91.9% 5
3 190.83 100.0% 70.0% 54.4% 84% 25.1% 95.1% 2
4 202.67 94.2% 65.9% 65.0% 100% 30.0% 95.9% 1
5 213.00 89.6% 62.7% 52.5% 81% 24.2% 87.0% 6
6 199.26 95.8% 67.0% 56.5% 87% 26.1% 93.1% 4
7 205.12 93.0% 65.1% 62.5% 96% 28.9% 94.0% 3
Page 1 of 1
Appendix F
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT FOR RESOURCES NOT
CONSIDERED IN IRP

APPENDIX F - DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
CANDIDATE RESOURCES REQUIRING MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY
Introduction
At the commencement of the IRP process, BELCO recognized that there exists an abundance of
supply side and demand side generating resources that could be considered as potential candidates
to assist BELCO in meeting its established objectives for the power system. However, it was
determined that the choice of resources for the quantitative evaluation would focus on technologies
(both to serve load as well as to abate load) and fuels that have been tested and proven, or display
a high likelihood of technical and economic success based on a global energy industry outlook.
The purpose of this document is to provide a high-level discussion of technologies that were not
included in the quantitative analysis. BELCO will continue to monitor these options for improved
economic attractiveness and/or improvements in technology that foster commercial deployment.
Fuel Cell Technology

Fuel cell technology was considered by BELCO as a candidate option as part of a gas centric fuel
option since the fuel cell is typically fueled by natural gas. Natural gas infrastructure would be
required to render the fuel cell a viable option for BELCO.
The candidate fuel cell facility utilizes multiple fuel cell units, each with a power output rating of
between 100 to 3,000 kW, for a total output of 10 MW. The fuel cells convert chemical energy
directly into electricity from natural gas and air vapor and produce heat and water vapor as by
products. The fuel (the reactant) is introduced continuously to the anode side of the unit cell while
air (the oxidant) is introduced continuously into the cathode side via a blower. Electricity is
produced by ionic transfer across an electrolyte that separates the fuel from the air.
Since each fuel cell develops a relatively low voltage, the cells are stacked to produce a higher,
more useful voltage. Depending on the type of fuel cell, high temperature waste heat from the
process may be available for cogeneration application. Each fuel cell stack generates DC electric
power. These stacks are connected to DC-to-AC inverters that produce an output of 60 cycles,
three phase AC electric power ranging from 480 volts to 13,800 volts.
Natural gas for the fuel cells would be provided from the proposed BELCO LNG facility as
discussed in the body of this report. The heat rate for a fuel cell facility is in the range of 7,500
8,500 BTU/kWh Higher Heating Value (HHV). The capital cost estimate for a 10 MW fuel cell
facility based on a North American installation is estimated at approximately $10,000/kW.
Considering the relatively high capital cost of this technology compared to other gas fueled
candidate options, BELCO decided to exclude fuel cells from the options selected for the
quantitative evaluation. Instead, BELCO will continue to monitor the capital cost of this
technology with a view of including it as a candidate in future IRP iterations as the cost becomes
competitive.
Appendix F BELCO 2016 IRP

Offshore Wind Energy

BELCO has established that there are no suitable on-land sites available on Bermuda for the
development of a utility scale wind energy project and is therefore considering an off-shore
installation. Elsam Engineering A/S prepared a feasibility study for an off-shore wind energy
resource that included a review of four potential sites as follows:
The Northwest corner of Murrays Anchorage
A limited area bounded to the north by the White flats and to the west and east by the North
Channel and the Brackish Pond Flats respectively
Two areas to the North of Murrays Anchorage
The Elsam report recommends the Murrays Anchorage and a site near the North Channel for
further investigation.
The capacity of the wind farm would be a nominal 20 MW. However, no ambient data has been
collected at either site to establish a wind profile and projected hourly generation profile for either
of the recommended sites. Leidos used wind data from the Bermuda airport to estimate the net
generation profile for the off-shore wind resource. Leidos also used its database of costs to
estimate the capital and O&M costs for the resource. As a consequence of this information, the
ability to deploy a scenario including offshore wind existed, but was not considered as part of the
scenarios described in the body of this report.
Prior to proceeding with the development of this resource, Leidos recommends that the feasibility
study be updated and that site data be collected for use in developing an hourly generation profile.
Biomass
Biomass power is derived from plants either directly using combustion or gasification to produce
heat to drive a generator or indirectly through conversion to biofuels such as methane gas,
ethanol or biodiesel. It is considered to be a renewable fuel in comparison to fossil fuels such as
natural gas, petroleum and coal.
Wood is the most common form of biomass used for power generation, although agricultural crop
wastes offer significant opportunity for closed loop fuel supply in many regions. In Bermuda,
wood pellets shipped from the southeastern United States are the most likely biomass fuel source.
Wood pellets can be shipped to a Bermuda port either as standard wood pellets available from a
growing industry in the United States or as torrified pellets that are roasted to drive off volatile
material, leaving a water-resistant product with a heating value closer to coal.
Current biomass power generation varies widely, depending on local climate and economy, and
ranges from forest waste to sugar cane waste to rice hulls and animal wastes. In the United States,
biomass power generation is greater than 10,000 MW and growing slowly but steadily, depending
on the many economic factors affecting this type of project, including fuel supply, harvesting and
Appendix F BELCO 2016 IRP Page 2

transportation cost, trans-shipping in some cases, construction cost, energy off-take agreement
terms, local environmental regulations, and operating and maintenance costs.
Biomass power projects typically range in size from 5 MW to 100 MW and are often involved in
combined heat and power projects to provide both cogenerated heat and electric energy. Energy
conversion technologies include oxidation combustion systems such as stoker-fired and fluidized
bed boilers, partial oxidation gasification fluidized bed boilers, and smaller pyrolysis units
generating a synthetic fuel gas in the absence of oxygen.
While BELCO has an interest in Biomass as a potential candidate to provide base load generation,
there is a concern that selecting the capital intensive biomass option would preclude the installation
of the also capital intensive LNG infrastructure, thus eliminating the opportunity for significant
reduction in emissions that could be achieved by converting to 100 percent gas fuel. BELCO is
committed to further exploring Biomass as a potential resource candidate.
Landfill Gas
A special subset of biomass power generation is landfill gas (LFG) generation. LFG results
from the decomposition of municipal solid waste buried in closed landfill cells under anaerobic
(absence of oxygen) conditions. LFG is well-established as a significant renewable energy source
because its capture and conversion to electrical or thermal energy avoids discharge of methane
into the atmosphere, which is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Use of LFG for power generation requires treatment to remove substances such as moisture,
particulates and chemical impurities that can be harmful to prime mover generators. Boilers and
internal combustion engines require the least treatment, while gas turbines require additional
treatment to meet manufacturers specifications.
There are more than 500 LFG power projects operating in the United States, having established a
solid performance history since the late 1990s. Whether used to reduce the cost of landfill leachate
treatment or to generate electricity, LFG projects are often profitable, even without renewable
energy credits. Roughly speaking, one million tons of municipal solid waste can generate up to
about 1 MW of electricity. Depending on the size of the landfill, electric generation equipment
ranges from boilers and steam turbines to internal combustion engines. LFG can also be used for
direct thermal applications such as kilns, dryers, and industrial heaters.
In Bermuda, municipal waste is incinerated in the government-owned WTE incinerator facility
and the energy produced is purchased by BELCO under a Power Purchase Agreement. As a result,
the landfill comprises largely horticultural waste and if harnessed for use in power generation, it
is clear that the landfill gas can produce only a small fraction of BELCOs energy needs.
Ice Storage
BELCOs concept for an ice storage system is based on a distributed energy storage solution that
is used in conjunction with existing commercial direct expansion air conditioning (AC) systems.
The ice storage units would use energy from the BELCO system during off-peak (nighttime)
periods, converting it into stored thermal energy in the form of ice, and use the ice to perform

useful work for building cooling by displacing the operation of commercial AC condensing units
during on-peak (daytime) periods. The ice storage equipment would be installed behind the utility
meter at small to medium commercial customer sites including shopping centers, office buildings,
restaurants, light industrial buildings, and guest houses.
As an example, a commercially available unit in a typical application will reportedly shift the
electrical energy consumed by a five ton scroll compressor and its associated condensing unit fans
operating under full load conditions, continuously, for five hours. Electrically, the unit reportedly
shifts between 36 and 50 kilowatt-hours of electric energy to the off-peak hours, reducing between
6 and 9 kilowatts of electric on-peak demand for six hours. Thus, the ice storage units would
provide a reliable reduction in demand for the BELCO system.
While modeling parameters have been developed for the individual ice storage units based on
technical data and cost information from the equipment supplier, additional work is required to
quantify the potential number of installs for the ice storage units and establish their economic
feasibility for BELCO.
Ocean Power
Bermuda is surrounded by an abundance of seawater which has the potential to provide BELCO
with continuous power from a clean, renewable energy resource. Several concepts that seek to
harness the Oceans energy potential are being developed. Such concepts include:
Ocean Thermal Energy
Wave Energy
Tidal and Ocean Currents
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) utilizes the differential in temperature between the
water near the surface and the water at depths of 3,000 feet or below. In tropical climates the
differential is as high as 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Typically, the thermal efficiency of the process
is very low and consequently, a very large volume of water is required to drive the thermodynamic
cycle. Several small demonstration OTEC plants have been placed in successful operation in the
Pacific area but no utility scale installations have been completed.
There are several types of wave energy conversion (WEC) devices. Four of the more developed
designs include the attenuator type, the point absorber type, the overtopping type and the
oscillating water column type.
The attenuator type consists of several devices that float on the surface of the ocean and
are hinged together at their ends. The relative motions of these devices drive a hydraulic
fluid that is used in turn to drive turbo-generators.
The point absorber type is a device that typically has one end attached to the seabed and
the other end at the surface. This device converts the vertical motion of the upper end
device into electricity.
The overtopping type can be fixed to the shore or can be floating. These devices collect
water from wave motion in an elevated reservoir to drive low head turbo-generators.

The oscillating water-column type is a semi-submerged device that captures the rising and
falling motion of the water near the surface that alternately pressurizes and depressurizes
a volume of air within the device. The alternating pressurized air passes (in both
directions) through a turbo-generator to generate electricity.
Tidal and ocean current energy conversion is a technology that utilizes the flow of water
caused by tidal forces or ocean currents to drive a turbo-generator. In the case of Bermuda,
the current flow in the offshore Gulf Stream is a significant resource. There are many
different designs for tidal in-stream energy conversion devices, including vertical and
horizontal turbines with either ducted or open systems.
None of the concepts that are designed to harness the oceans potential as a source of electric
power has achieved commercial deployment at this time. Several small demonstration installations
have been placed in service for testing but no utility scale installations have been completed.
Challenges that are being encountered in the development of ocean power conversion systems
include protecting the devices from the forces of ocean storms, the corrosive effects of seawater,
and minimizing the interactions with marine life.
The following status update and commentary was provided by Triton Renewable Energy Ltd, the
developer of a wave energy technology:
1. Triton Renewable Energy Ltd has been exploring the potential of a commercial wave
energy farm in Bermuda since 2008, actively working with Carnegie Wave Energy since
2010 using their proprietary CETO technology. Preliminary public consultation has been
undertaken and an agreement with the Bermuda Government with regards to identifying
suitable locations for installation is under discussion.
2. 12 months of in-water testing of Bermudas wave energy regime has confirmed a wave
climate suitable for the CETO technology.
3. Carnegie has successfully completed their 12-month CETO 5 demonstration project in
Perth, Western Australia with over 14,000 cumulative operational hours. 3 units were
installed and operated in a range of sea states and in waves up to 5.8 m. CETO 5 units were
peak rated at 240kW.
4. This wealth of data has helped advance concept design of CETO 6, which has four times
the peak output (1MW), and this is now complete. Electrical power is now generated within
CETO 6, avoiding hydraulic transmission losses.
5. Preliminary design and procurement of CETO 6 is scheduled for later this year (2016),
with the first demonstration site off Western Australia scheduled to come online in 2017.
6. CETO 6 commercialization is being targeted for 2018 in the UK.
7. Commercial roll out of CETO 6 for island jurisdictions is anticipated for 2020/2021.
8. Tritons longstanding relationship with Carnegie Wave Energy makes it, and Bermuda
well positioned once the commercial viability of CETO 6 is proven.

Temporary Reciprocating Generators

As a contingency plan to maintain an acceptable level of power supply reliability in the face of a
generation capacity shortfall caused by a combination of necessary plant retirements and a delay
in installing replacement capacity, BELCO has obtained a proposal to have modular mobile
reciprocating generating units dispatched to Bermuda to serve as temporary capacity for a defined
period of time. The temporary units would be situated at the BELCO Central Plant site and would
burn light fuel oil provided by BELCO. They would be operated and maintained by the equipment
supplier.
Estimated costs that were compiled for this contingency based on a quote provided by the
equipment supplier. The generating capacity shortfall scenario that would require mobilization of
the temporary units was not modeled in the quantitative evaluation.
Conversion of MSD Units to Combined Cycle

In order to maximize the fuel efficiency of the existing MSD units, BELCO considered converting
recently installed units E5, E6, E7 and E8 to a 4on1 CC operation through the installation of
four heat recovery steam generators and one steam turbine generator. Indeed, technical and cost
parameters for the proposed conversion were developed, based on OEM estimates, to enable the
MSD CC option to be modeled as a part of the technical evaluation process.
After further consideration, BELCO determined that the conversion would be impractical for
several reasons including:
Limited available space to accommodate the additional equipment.
Multiple, extended plant outages would be required for construction.
Construction of new resources would occur concurrently.
Cumbersome plant operation.
As a result, the CC conversion option was excluded from the quantitative evaluation in this IRP
exercise.

Integrated Resource Plan

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

Integrated Resource Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

2016 INTEGRATED RESOURCE

Bermuda Electric Light Company

June 30, 2016

GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................1

Section 1 IRP METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 1-1

Section 2 Principal Assumptions and Considerations ........................................... 2-1

Section 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 3-1

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1

3.6.4 Thermal Resources .................................................................... 3-20

Section 4 IRP TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... 4-1

GoT-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-3

GoT-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-5

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 GoT 1

GoT-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. GoT-3

GoT-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Figure ES-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP

Description of IRP Objectives

ES-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector Policy

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-3

Fuel/Resource Type 2020 2025 2035

Overview of IRP Cases Considered

ES-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Consideration of the value of energy storage, modeled as a function of a battery

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-5

Partial Conversion LPG Case (most logistically plausible LPG-centric expansion

ES-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Figure ES-2 Qualitative Scoring Results

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-7

Levelized Difference from % Difference from

Weighted Weighted Total Combined

ES-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

BELCO 2016 IRP

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-9

ES-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-11

efficiency portfolio will be significantly less than the technical or economic

ES-12 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. ES-13

1.1 Project Overview

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Figure 1-1 Summary of Recent Period Real GDP

1.2 Description of IRP Objectives

1-2 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

standards, encourage economic investment, or be logistically advantageous given

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-3

1.3 Alignment with June 2015 National Electricity Sector

1-4 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

Resource Type 2020 2025 2035

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-5

1-6 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

1.4 Load Forecast

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-7

Figure 1-2 Energy Forecast (GWh)

Figure 1-3 Peak Demand Forecast (MW)

1-8 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16

1.5 Fuel Forecast

2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16 Leidos, Inc. 1-9

1-10 Leidos, Inc. 2016 BELCO IRP Final Report_06-30-16