1 / 41

Modeling Work Group Discussion Outline

Modeling Work Group Discussion Outline. MWG Web Meeting March 5, 2012. Proposed Agenda. Welcome & MWG Business Tom Miller TAS Steering Group Update Tom Miller 2022 PC1 Common Case Results Stan Holland

dorie
Download Presentation

Modeling Work Group Discussion Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling Work GroupDiscussion Outline MWG Web Meeting March 5, 2012

  2. Proposed Agenda • Welcome & MWG Business Tom Miller • TAS Steering Group Update Tom Miller • 2022 PC1 Common Case Results Stan Holland • 2010 Dataset Status Stan Holland • TAS Studies Working Group Report Keegan Moyer & . Tom Miller • Study clustering & prioritization • Themes • Directive on EIM/BA Cooperation Studies • Next Meeting

  3. TAS Steering Group Update • Theme: TAS Vitality • TEPPC Letter to Stakeholders/Policy Makers • Inform and Solicit more participation • TAS Working Group- Vice Chair Positions • Assist in Leadership of Working Group • Potential Liaison to Groups • TAS Charter: to provide guidance and formalize the contribution TAS Makes • TAS Involvement with 20-Year Study • Develop Working Group Plans

  4. 2022 Common Case Results Generation Dispatch Reserve Violations Path Flows

  5. Annual Generation – 2022 CC

  6. Generation Observations • Several plants were moved to cogeneration category (or CHP) • The cogen/CHP was updated to force higher utilization • Cost parameters for thermal generation were changed to increase operating cost of coal-fired units and decrease cost of gas-fired units

  7. Reserve Violations January - April

  8. Reserve Violations May - December

  9. Possible Causes of Reserve Violations • Dispatch to meet load does not provide sufficient flexibility to commit another unit for reserves (no load to serve). • Must-take units at set output levels • Least-cost units at minimum generation • Coal reserve contribution limited • Option in Promod that co-optimizes load and reserves extends run-time by 3X.

  10. Sampling of Transmission Flow Results

  11. Path Flow Results - Percent

  12. 2020 SPSC Reference Case Results – Most Heavily Utilized Paths Note – The list of “Most Heavily Utilized” paths is identical for the TEPPC Base Case

  13. 2010 Dataset Status

  14. Other Generator Parameters

  15. TEPPC Sub-regions and Areas

  16. 2012 Study Program

  17. Link to SWG 2/16/2012 Meeting Page: LINK

  18. Purpose and Goal Purpose • Introduce proposal for resource and transmission centric study methodology that: • is new, interesting, and informative for next 10-year Plan • meets the intent of most, if not all related study requests • gets “out in front” of policy decisions At the end of this presentation and discussion… • Direct staff to assemble draft study package using this strategy; OR • Direct staff to assemble draft study package using some other methodology

  19. 2012 Study Requests Studies Sensitivities Resource Relocations Alternative Futures Base Load Retirements Proposal Modeling • Project Toolbox • Transmission • Pumped storage

  20. 2019 Resource Relocation and Transmission Expansion Studies Last time… Remove 12,000 GWh of CA RPS Resources Add 12,000 GWh Central Question: Is the a more efficient and cost effective way for California to meet its current RPS?

  21. Western RPS WA: 15% x 2020* MT: 15% x 2015 OR: 25% x 2025(large utilities)* 5% - 10% x 2025 (smaller utilities) • Next Plan due end of 2013 • Potential for increases in RPS (see CA) • Inform future RPS decisions State w/ RPS on or before 2020 CO: 30% by 2020(IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)* NV: 25% x 2025* UT: 20% by 2025* CA: 33% x 2020 AZ: 15% x 2025 NM: 20% x 2020(IOUs) 10% x 2020 (co-ops)

  22. Proposal Resource Strategy Add: 6,000 GWh Add: 12,000 GWh Add: firming resource Add transmission • Central Question(s): • How robust is the grid? • If states in the west were to increase their RPS, where should they look to procure resources? Note: Potential to combine OR & WA for 12,000 GWh NW study. Same for SW.

  23. Proposal Transmission Strategy Example: Wyoming Transmission Expansion Add: 6,000 GWh • Test robustness • EC based on need (congestion) • Hypothetical or real projects Add: 12,000 GWh 3 Steps • Force delivery to load area with hypothetical or real project (leverage WREZ) • AND/OR • Use requested EC projects • Put hypothetical projects where congestion is identified Add: firming resource • Use requested EC projects only • Only run with 12,000 GWh cases • Force “firm” delivery to load center

  24. Proposal - continued Come up with methodology, supported by WREZ, based on how much high quality economic resources are available in state/region. Only add “realistic” amounts. vs. Supplied by WECC Project Portal, hypothetical projects, and most importantly, submitted study requests. Potential use nomograms to assure delivery of resource. ECs In selecting resource hubs, and load destinations for EC’s, we may be able to leverage work done in identifying WREZ hubs of greatest interest to LSE’s. Example: for load center, compare resource hubs for #1 utility preferred hub, and #1 economic hub. WREZ Phase 3 Experiments with resource firming can be done with gas, hydro (BC), and pumped storage Firming

  25. Interesting Results • How robust is the grid? • Does it have capacity for the implementation of “unexpected” renewable resources? • Can still perform capital cost comparisons • If I want to increase my RPS, where should I look for resources? AND • If I’m hitting cost constraints in meeting my current RPS using my original plan to procure locally, where should I look for resources?

  26. Other Study Clustering • Sensitivity • High Load • Federal RPS 15% (minimum) • Modeling • Hurdle Rates • Variable Transmission Limits • Limit Incremental New Resources to Areas with available physical capacity (i.e. no congestion)

  27. Other Study Clustering • Energy Storage • Base Load Retirements • Coal Retirements • Replace by local NG plants • Nuclear Retirements is response to safety concerns, NRC regulation, or policy direction

  28. On-Going Discussion Next Steps • Direct staff to assemble draft study package using this strategy; OR • Direct staff to assemble draft study package using a different methodology • SWG meeting March 8th (9-11 AM PST) • TAS meeting March 21 (9-11 AM PST)

  29. EIM/BA Cooperation Maximize Diversity

  30. Background • TEPPC received study requests that are out of scope or not technically feasible • EIM/BA cooperation (sub-hourly) • Maximize diversity • This presentation describes how the study requests will be met.

  31. NREL Study • Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (WWSIS) Phase I • GE-led study (slides from 6/25/08 technical review committee meeting) • Looked at many resource location options • Punch-line • Geographic diversity (profile correlation) and capacity value (peaking value) have to be weighted heavily in order to overcome capacity factor (MWh/MW) value

  32. VGS Balancing Cooperation Study • Identify the impacts of Balancing Area (BA) cooperation on the cost of variable generation integration costs • Compares various BA area consolidation (pools) • Punch-line • TEPPC’s 7 pools yielded similar results as an interconnection-wide solution • VGS will have a report out in June that will be incorporated into the Plan documents

  33. VGS Balancing Cooperation Study • Scenario 0-TEPPC 2019 Structure 39 areas, 7 pools • Scenario 1A -25 Areas, 25 Pools (Maximum pools Promod Allows) • Scenario 1B: 20 pools, 20 areas • Scenario 3: Consolidate BA (1 pool, 2 areas) with transmission constraint

  34. Trial Simulations with TEPPC 2019 case to determine Pools and BAs Structure for each Scenario • Current TEPPC model has 7 pools. Each pool has a set of consolidated BAs (Scenario 0) • The objective of the first scenario of the study is to model current situation as realistic as possible but in 2020 34 http://www.nerc.com/fileUploads/File/AboutNERC/maps/NERC_Regions_BA.jpg

  35. Scenario 1A -25 Areas, 25 Pools • 25 is the maximum number of Pools allowed in PROMOD • Full transmission • Hydro is scheduled to benefit pool where the unit belongs • Results summary IPC PACE • Huge dump and emergency energy because • The optimization is done over pools • Some pools don’t have enough capacity while the others have too much to serve their own load.

  36. Scenario 0-TEPPC 2019 Structure 39 areas, 7 pools • Full transmission • Hydro is scheduled to benefit pools • Results summary

  37. Scenario 3: Consolidate BA (1 pool, 2 areas) with transmission constraint • Full transmission • Hydro is scheduled to benefit area where the unit belongs • Results summary

  38. Generation and Cost Comparison 3 3

  39. Current Direction….. • TEPPC received study requests that are out of scope, not technically feasible, or are being addressed through different studies (i.e. VGS). • The general feeling is that TEPPC needs to focus on transmission expansion planning and that the current topology provides the best, all around basis for sharing resources and reserves. • The recommendation to TAS and TEPPC is that TEPPC not get involved in those types of studies • Other groups will likely continue to use the TEPPC data to study other scenarios.

  40. Tom Miller MWG- Chair (415) 973-2070 tem3@pge.com Questions?

  41. Wrap-up and Next meeting • Wrap-up • Action Items • Next Meeting

More Related