1 / 24

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points. MWG Meeting January 23, 2012 Web Meeting. Proposed Agenda. Welcome & MWG Business Tom Miller Task Force Updates Hydro Modeling Demand Side Modeling Flexibility Reserve Test Results California AB32 TAS Meeting Recommendations Next Meeting.

espen
Download Presentation

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points

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 Points MWG Meeting January 23, 2012 Web Meeting

  2. Proposed Agenda • Welcome & MWG Business Tom Miller • Task Force Updates • Hydro Modeling • Demand Side Modeling • Flexibility Reserve Test Results • California AB32 • TAS Meeting Recommendations • Next Meeting

  3. Hydro Modeling Task Force • Hydro Contribution to Spinning Reserves • Assume Fixed Hydro does not contribute to spinning reserves. • PLF/HTC plants contribute unused capacity but spinning reserves are limited to 25% of nameplate. • Hydro Sensitivites • Normal Hydro (2005)- completed except CA’s Gianelli PS • 2010 Hydro- WECC Staff collecting data • Dry Hydro (2001): last CA data being process (Irina Green) • Wet Hydro (2011) - To start data gathering now that 2011 is over • Validation - Christie developed an automated report using matlab for quality control on HTC dispatch.

  4. DSM Task Force • Modeling Approach • Interruptible programs: modeled as a High Cost CT unit • Non-interruptible programs: will be modeled as load modifying resources(based on WECC BA LMPs) • To Do: Implementing DRP into TEPPC 2022 dataset • LBNL’s Andy Satchwell has set-up model using preliminanry LMPs

  5. Reserve Modeling Results • Composite Hourly Reserve Modeled for each TEPPC Sub-region 4% of Daily Peak Load + Hourly Flexibility Regulation = Composite Hourly Reserve • Flexibility reserve adjustment reflects the potential change in wind and solar output • Data provided by E3 / NREL • Results are compared without and with the reserve modeling change

  6. Hourly Reserve Requirement by Sub-region Highest reserve requirement is in areas with most wind and/or solar generation. Dip at end of January is due to missing solar data. Flex reserves were not calculated for Alberta, British Columbia, or CFE.

  7. Composite Reserve Duration Plots

  8. Example for August 25 - 26 Unloaded capacity of committed thermal resources contribute to the reserve requirement. All unloaded HTC/PLF hydro & pump storage contributes to reserves, committed or not.

  9. Gen Change by Area and Type

  10. Proposals to Limit Reserve Contributions • Hydro • Promod uses available unloaded HTC/PLF hydro to meet reserve requirements. • Several factors can limit the reserve contribution • Proposal to limit contribution to 25% of plant capacity • Coal • Same use by Promod, subject to 1 hour ramp limit • In many cases wouldn’t meet the 10 minute rule for spinning reserve • Proposal to limit contribution to 15% of unloaded capacity

  11. Test with Hydro contribution limited • Set PLF units to not contribute • Set HTC units to only contribute up to 25% of their total capacity • Preliminary results still under review • May be some problems with implementation or program behavior • Comparisons follow….

  12. Reserve Contribution Comparison Remember that for most hours the reserve contribution exceeds the requirement

  13. Test with Coal contribution limited • Set Coal units to only contribute up to 15% of their unloaded capacity • Difference between maximum capacity and dispatched capacity. • Preliminary results still under review • Comparisons follow….

  14. Comparison with Coal Limitation

  15. Requirement vs. Available

  16. Assessment of Reserve Changes • Overall, results more consistent with actual operation • Hydro reserve contribution issue

  17. California AB32 Update • CO2 Cost for CA in-state Resources • CA CPUC MPR Calculation • CO2 Cost for “unspecified” CA Imports • EF(unsp) = 0.435 MT-CO2/MWh: Cost cost = 41.86 $/MT-CO2 • CA import hurdle rate: (0.435)*(41.86) = $18.21/MWh • Potential 20% Reduction for NW Imports • CO2 Cost for “designated” CA Imports • $41.86/MT CO2 reduced to account for CO-2 Hurdle Rate (unit specific)

  18. TAS Meeting Recommendations • Flexibility Reserves • CHP Modeling • Cycling Costs and Dispatch

  19. Wrap-up and Next meeting • Wrap-up • Next meeting • ??

  20. Questions?

More Related