Browsing by Subject "Duke Energy"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Duke University Health System Demand Response Prospectus
    (2014-04-25) Ong, Justin; Yuan, Michelle
    The Duke University Health System Demand Response Prospectus is a client-based Masters Project that explores the profitability and environmental impacts of enrolling Duke University Health System and Duke University into Duke Energy’s PowerShare demand response program. Demand response programs are mechanisms used by utilities to decrease energy demand during high-usage periods (e.g. hot days when air conditioning use is highest) by incentivizing their customers to reduce grid consumption for a limited time. This temporary demand reduction results in cost savings to utilities because it allows them to avoid using their most inefficient and expensive power plants. In our project, we analyze the economic, environmental, and regulatory feasibility of using Duke University and Duke Medicine emergency generators in a Duke Energy demand response program called PowerShare, more specifically the Generator Curtailment Option. Duke Carbon Offset Initiative credits, a Duke University funding mechanism to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, were also considered as a potential revenue source. In order to conduct the analysis, an MS Excel and Visual Basic model was created to calculate the impacts of enrollment. The model provided to the client was designed to offer an easy user interface to quickly conduct the analyses. It was also specially designed to offer the flexibility to incorporate future changes in the energy market and user preferences. The model results indicated that, while feasible, demand response enrollment is not currently attractive from environmental and financial perspectives. The financials are poor for two mains reasons. First, expected net revenues are strictly negative because PowerShare enrollment requires Duke University to re-enroll into paying a demand side management rider (DSM) to which they are currently exempt. The DSM fee, although minimal individually, amounts to an astronomical fee for large consumers like Duke University and Duke Medicine since it is charged per unit of energy purchased. Second, PowerShare curtailment compensation is lower than current cost of diesel fuel. From an environmental perspective, PowerShare is also not a favorable option. Instead of offering a carbon emissions reduction opportunity, PowerShare participation is actually expected to increase the amount of global carbon emissions because Duke University generators emit more carbon than Duke Energy’s natural gas peak usage plants.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Economic Analysis of Duke Energy’s Proposed Save-A-Watt
    (2008-04-25T20:59:14Z) Milligan, John
    As North Carolina regulators begins to recognize the untapped economic, social, and environmental benefits of meeting increased electricity demand through energy efficiency, it has become clear that traditional electricity rate-making creates a disincentive to invest in energy efficiency. To encourage the use of energy efficiency, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) is investigating Duke Energyâs proposed energy efficiency financing mechanism called Save-a-Watt (SaW). Through SaW, Duke Energy can subsidize energy efficiency measures for individual ratepayers. These energy efficiency measures reduce the amount of electricity sold to the individual ratepayers. To recover subsidy costs and opportunity costs from reduced electricity sales, Duke Energy spreads 90% of the cost that it would have taken for the utility to generate the saved electricity to all ratepayers. This paper provides an analysis of the quantitative effect of Duke Energyâs proposed Save-a-Watt (SaW) mechanism. Although Duke Energy has proposed SaW in many states, this analysis will focus on Duke Energyâs North Carolina service territory. To evaluate SaW, a cost benefit analysis of SaW was generated from a financial model of Duke Energyâs operations. The financial model of Duke Energy was built from information gathered from reports, financial and accounting statements, and North Carolina Public Utilities documents. For the cost benefit analysis, two cases were simulated over a 25 year period: the base case includes the construction of two 800 Megawatt coal power plants and the SaW case includes one 800 Megawatt coal power plant and the rest of electricity demand is met with energy efficiency investments. The outcomes from the cost benefit analysis indicate that ratepayers, utilities, and society would realize a positive net present value by implementing the SaW case rather than the base case. In addition, minimal impacts to electricity rates were observed. Due to the confidential nature of information related to the cost of electricity production, some assumptions were made in order to complete the analysis. Future research by individuals with access to Duke Energyâs confidential information should be done to verify the findings in this report.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Examining the Barriers to Sustainable Power at Duke Energy: The Non-Profit vs. Corporate Perspectives
    (2009-04-21T00:14:59Z) Kim, Eleanor
    Electric utilities throughout the United States are under increasing pressure by the government, the public and environmental groups to make the transition to clean power as urgency over the need to address climate change grows. The Southeast will be particularly hard-pressed to find substitutes for its numerous coal plants even as its nuclear options face strong public opposition. A perfect example of this struggle is embodied in the positions held by the North Carolina Waste Awareness Reduction Network (NC WARN), a non-profit environmental group located in the Durham area, and Duke Energy, a corporate electric utility provider with a generation mix comprised nearly entirely of coal and nuclear plants. In order to meet North Carolina’s growing energy needs, NC WARN has promoted a combination of energy efficiency, demand-side management, and renewables while avoiding the need for new power plants. In contrast, Duke Energy has asserted that only new coal and nuclear plants are capable of reliably meeting this demand. This project analyzes why the two groups’ approaches differ and what barriers and disincentives prevent Duke Energy from adopting NC WARN’s more “sustainable” energy plan. It also offers recommendations for research, regulation, and policy solutions that could be used to bridge this gap. This project also provides a closer examination of the arguments surrounding Duke Energy’s controversial on-going construction of a new coal-fired unit at Cliffside, North Carolina via analysis of Duke Energy’s cumulative air emissions under various carbon scenarios. The results of this simulation demonstrate that carbon tax policy and renewable energy incentives will play a major role in determining whether a shift away from coal plants not involving nuclear will become a reality for energy generation in North Carolina as well as the United States as a whole.