Sample Filing, Ford Energy Gains

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated

PDF of 20070917-0143

Received by FERC OSEC 09/13/2007 in Docket#:

HB21-93-2-000

ORIGINAL
Plant Er~ir~eti.g Dept.
Twin Citlea AIMmml~y Plant
966 South Mi~llJppi RJvar B~vd.
Saint ~ . M~rmesota 5 5 1 1 6 - 1 8 8 8

Vehk:le Operations
Ford Motor Company

PR~L~ ~. 382
NAlrDJMM No. MN83001

September

07, 2007

Secretary Kimberly D. Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Routing Code PJ-12.2
Washington, D.C.
20426

Re:

Document NOB. HB21-93-2

...a
r'r!

c
.-

and HB94-03-2

Dear Secretary Bose:

13

..< ..~.

(/1

On August 13 th, 2007 Mr. william Guey-Lee of your staff provided us with a
letter requesting additional information to coa~lete the headwater benefits
assessment calculations for our project on the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
In a follow up call to Mr. Sarma of your staff, the additional information
being the cost of obtaining an equivalent amount of electricity from the most
likely alternative source during the period for which the charge is assessed.
This would be in the form of $/MWh for each year which has been documented in
attachment A.
We are concerned with the Commission's
which states in part:

regulations

at 18 C.F.R.

11.11

(b) (5)

No final charge assessed by the Commission under this subpart may exceed
85 percent of the value of the energy gains.
The cost of obtaining an equivalent amount of electricity from our local
utility is significantly different than the compensation that we receive for
sale of this same power to them.
Being a self producer of power for our
assembly operations, all excess power generated from our project is Bold Co
our local utility. The amount of power we are able to supply to the utility
fluctuates with our plant operational demand and available stream flowage. The
variable nature of this arrangement has our power classified by the utility as
non-capaclty.
This results in a significantly lower power compensation
contract than a typical hydroelectric generator. For this reason, the true
value of the energy gains are far less than the potential 85% calculated value
of energy gains based on our local utility's commercial rates.

°

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated

Secretary
September
Page 2

PDF of 20070917-0143

Received by FERC OSEC 09/13/2007 in Docket#:

HB21-93-2-000

Kimberly D. Bose
07, 2007

Due to the unique arrangement of our generating facility being primary an
independent producer and consumer of electrical power for our assembly
operations; we believe that the headwater benefits determination should take
this into account. The actual annual charge for the head waters benefit should
not be more than what we would receive from our local utility for excess
power.
If you would llke to discuss this matter further, please contact me directly
at 651-696-0660 or through e-mail at B B y s t r o ~ F o r d . c o m .

Sincerely,

Brad Bystrom
Ford Motor COmpany
Twin Cities Assembly Plant
Plant Engineering Supervisor

0

fl

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Upper Mississippi River Basin Headwaters Benefits Determinations
Docket Nos. HB21-93-2 HB94-03-2

M
I

fO

Ford Motor Company Project 362
Year
111/2007
0/1/200G
11/1/2003
5/1/'2003
1/1/2003
1/1/2002
10/t/2001
1/1/2001
2/3/11)111
10/2wl~rt
0/2/1N6
0/3111194
1/1/19113
4/30/1992
3/29/191)1
1/111990
1/11198~

•
•
"
•
•
*

X C E L Power Compan
Peek
Off Peak
0.053710
0.045570
0.038700
0.035473
0.035486
0.035502
0.035932
0.035932
0.036200
0.036200
0.036200
0.036200
0.033500
0.033000
0.031300
0.031290
0.031280

0.042210
0.035813
0.028227
0.025873
0.025886
0.026302
0.026332
0.026332
0.026600
0.026600
0.026600
0.026600
0.025200
0.025000
0.024000
0.023980
0.023980

fO

, Rate L~,
Avemge
PJd~
0.046317
0.039298
0.031967
0.029302
0.029315
0.029731
0.029761
0.029761
0.030029

0.030029
0.030029
0.030029
0.0281~
0.027857
0.026607
0.026587
0.029~7

46.3171
39.2976
31.9674
29.3016
29.3146
29.7306
29.7606
29.7606
30.0286
30.0286
30.0286
50.0286
28.1643
27.8571
26.6071
26.5871
26.5871

Xcel Commercial Rate to Ford Motor Company
(Averaged Peak & Off Peak S/kWh)

0
t~
Q
Q
Q

50.0000
45.0000
40.0000
35.0000
~" 30.0000
~ 25.0000
20.0000
15,0000

-

)

i

i

f)%

t t

J

i

I

Q

fO
fl
fO
fO

10.0000

M
~' " . ~ ' "

,P,~.

~"~.~'-',,~-~.'..-~... ~ ' ; ' ~ ' X ~ . ~ -

•~

" '

'

• ,.~....

'~" ,:.

. •

:..

0
0 , ~

M
Q

e=

¢=

(=

Year

t~
Q
Q

All rates shown am On-Peak & Off-Peak Energy Charges from Xcol Energy. (includes asSmated base fuel costs)
Average Rate is calculated using local On-Peak times of (garn-9pm M-F). Ave Rate = {[Peak (60 ht~) + OffPeak (108 hrs)]/168 hrs}
111/86 to 1/1/90 mtas are not known - carded back the 111/90 rate as a 'reasonable rate' for this 4 year pedod.
Rates verified by Erich Beaulieu of Xcal Enecgy for years 1990 through 2007.
Ford's compensation rate from Xca4 F_necgyfor none capacity excess power is averaged at $31.60 / MWh. (on peak 0.046 & off peak 0.0236 kWh)
Energy Gain break even for Ford Motor per revenue stream for 2007 is 68.25% of Xcai average

Alternative Source Utility Rates For Equivelent Energy Gains Calculations (1986 to 2007).xls
Date Created: 09-07-2007
Brad Bystrom - Rant Engrg.

Attachment

0
fl
fO

(A)