Mint Happenings – Q1 2015

Home/Uncategorized/Mint Happenings – Q1 2015

Mint Happenings – Q1 2015

Matrix Pricing – Now available and sent daily to our Channel Partners
New Product – Time-of-Use Solution – Now available in CT
Fixed Full Requirements Energy Lock™ forecasted to include expected capacity increases
Mint Energy – Offers Matrix Pricing

In addition to our custom pricing for our fixed full requirements Energy Lock product, we now send daily matrix pricing to all active channel partners. Our matrix daily pricing is accompanied by contract templates, and our Market Coverage Cheat Sheet in addition to our matrix pricing guidelines.

New Product – Time-of-Use Solution – Now available in Connecticut!

Time-Of-Use (TOU) pricing is a two-part rate structure that charges different rates for energy depending on the time of day the energy is used. With TOU rates, your bill will be determined by both when you use electricity and how much you use. Mint Energy’s Time-of-Use Product is a two-part all-inclusive pre-determined per-kWh rate, full-requirements electricity supply product that aims to provide customers with budget certainty on its electricity supply contracts. The rate will include a two part price that is designed to achieve an overall minimization of customer bills by encouraging the reduction of consumption during the most energy intensive hours of the day.

Connecticut prospects can simply “click” to sign-up today at:

Fixed Full Requirements Energy Lock™ – Forecasted to Include Expected Capacity Increases

Mint Energy’s fixed full requirements Energy Lock™ product is an all-inclusive offering. This full swing product includes energy, admin, renewables, ancillaries, and capacity available in PJM and New England.

It’s forecasted to include the known capacity increases in NEMA beginning June 2016 and set to drastically increase June 2017.

New England Capacity Increases
The New England ISO recently reported on the results of the 9th annual FCM auction. This is held 3 years in advance of the capacity commitment period and determines the total cost of capacity in New England for new and existing electric supply and demand-side resources.

By 2019 an estimated 3,400 megawatts of coal and oil fi red plants generating capacity are expected to retire. The total increase could range from about $3 billion in 2017 to $4 billion in 2018.
This year’s FCM auction acquired more than 1,400 MW of new capacity, including 1,060 MW from new power plants. Despite the new capacity, the FCM auction did not procure commitments for all of the capacity required to serve the region.
ISONE reported a shortfall of about 238 MW of capacity required to meet future demand in SEMA and RI.
(Source: Pentland, William. “New England’s Capacity Prices Rise Again.” Forbes. Forbes, March. 16, 2015. Web.)

Delay in PJM’s Annual Capacity Auction

PJM’s Capacity Performance plan was turned down by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, deeming it “deficient.” FERC sent a four page order questioning ten areas of the proposal. PJM stated that it will respond to FERC’s questions and requests with urgency.
PJM’s CP proposal has been compared to ISO-NE’s Pay-for-Performance design. Capacity Performance significantly changes the rules under which capacity resources are compensated in PJM’s markets and is intended to improve generator performance.
PJM’s proposal was expected to result in larger capacity payments for over-performing participants and higher penalties for non-performers, and would have altered its capacity market from the 2016/2017 Delivery Year with full implementation 2020/2021.
PJM requested, and was granted by FERC, a one-time waiver of its tariff to allow a delay in the annual capacity auction for 2018/2019. (Order on BRA Deadline Waiver.) The delay allows the FERC time to rule on PJM’s Capacity Performance fi ling so that the Capacity Performance
product would be part of the auction if the fi ling were approved.
PJM will hold the auction no later than the week of Aug. 10, and will secure capacity for the 2018-2019 delivery year.
(Source 1: “FERC Grants PJM Request to Delay Annual Capacity Auction.” PJM Inside Lines. PJM Interconnection, April. 24, 2015. Web; Source 2: Enerknol Research. “FERC Ruling Contributes To PJM Market Uncertainty.” Breaking Energy. Breaking Media, Inc, April. 20, 2015. Web.)

PJM & ISO-NE Winter Rates

Winter 2015 – Overview

The northeast experienced low temperatures across much of the country, comparable to last winter’s cold season. Extreme cold temperatures set records in 72 cities including Washington DC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit. Despite record cold temperatures, prices in both the electricity and natural gas markets were able to remain moderate and stable throughout the season.

Preparation was a major factor in keeping energy prices low this past winter. Important actions taken to prepare for the winter included PJM’s new Cold Weather Preparation Guidelines, the continuation of ISO-NE’s Winter Reliability Program, and other operational improvements. PJM and NYISO were also able to waive their $1,000 MWh offer caps, which helped ensure fuel costs would be recovered for generators.

In addition, record natural gas production, ample storage inventories, new pipeline capacity and infrastructure, and low oil prices are factors that also contributed to this winter’s moderate electricity prices. Natural gas pipeline and electric transmission operators also communicated more effectively during periods of stress, which improved the grid’s reliability.

(Source: FERC’s Office of Enforcement’s Division of Energy Market Oversight. “2014 State of the Markets.” FERC., March 19, 2015. Web.)

Northeast Resists Pipelines, Despite Rising Costs

There is almost universal agreement that the Northeast needs to expand its energy supply. Currently, New England is facing some of the highest costs in the nation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, New Englanders paid $14.52 per thousand cubic feet of gas in 2014, compared to $10.94 for the rest of the nation.

“Everyone seems to know the Northeast has a pipeline capacity problem, but not many seem to be willing to make many concessions to fix that problem,” said Andrew Pusateri, senior utilities analyst for Edward Jones. Cheap, relatively clean natural gas is definitely a short-term, realistic answer. However, the Northeast has resisted more pipelines, despite rising energy costs. Proposals to build or expand natural gas pipelines are met with discontent among citizens.

A pipeline route proposed by Texas-based Kinder Morgan was rejected over the winter. Nine towns in New Hampshire, all of which would be in route of the pipeline, voted to oppose the project. That line is one of approximately twenty pipeline projects being proposed throughout the Northeast.

The region’s power grid operator, ISO-New England, stated in its 2015 Regional Electricity Outlook that natural gas availability is “one of the most serious challenges” the region faces.

Opponents worry about environmental harm, lower property values, the potential for accidents, and the harmful effects of relying on natural gas instead of integrating more renewable sources like wind or solar. Hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, may also influence resistance. The process, which includes blasting chemical-mixed water into wells to crack open rock, has drawn much criticism.

All major projects have met some opposition, especially in New York and Pennsylvania. Out of 651 landowners in New York and Pennsylvania affected by the pipeline project, 125 refused to sign right of way agreements. Much of the opposition toward pipelines was driven by the anti-fracking sentiment that resulted in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s ban on shale gas development in New York.

(Source: Stevens, Rik. “Northeast Resists More Pipelines, Despite Higher Energy Costs.” Huffington Post. Huffington Post, Dec. 22, 2014. Web.)

By | 2017-03-20T13:25:15+00:00 August 21st, 2016|Categories: Uncategorized|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment