1 / 15

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points. MWG Meeting June 27, 2011 Web Meeting. Proposed Agenda. Welcome and business Tom Miller Modeling Southern California Thermal Discussion New- Modeling California Cap and Trade Discussion

floria
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 June 27, 2011 Web Meeting

  2. Proposed Agenda • Welcome and business Tom Miller • Modeling Southern California Thermal Discussion • New- Modeling California Cap and Trade Discussion • Nomograms Discussion • Northern California Hydro comparison Stan Holland • NWPP Surplus Stan Holland • Other? • Next Meeting Tom Miller

  3. Southern California Local Area Requirements • Imports into Southern California is supported by inertia • Today’s existing fleet of Units provides majority of inertia (mass) • Peaker and renewables have small to insignificant inertia • If high imports can not be supported then many more new resources are needed into the load pockets then retired • Peakers have usually higher energy costs and higher rates of emissions • Limits based on the percentage of Under-Frequency Load Shedding (UFLS) requirements for the individual Participating Transmission Owner’s (PTO’s) area • California Long-term Planning Study • LA Basin 60/40 Rule: there needs to be generation equal to 40 percent of load at all times • SDG&E 75/25 Rule: : there needs to be generation equal to 25 percent of load at all times • '*San Onofre 2 & 3 Units contribute 80% of their generation to the SCE Min Gen Requirements, and 20% of their generation to the SDGE Min Gen Requirements • SCE has provided Lists of units that can support

  4. SCE Import Nomogram • Modeling in Promod Equation form: 0 < (-SCE Import + 0.6*(SCE Load - CDWR Pump Load - MWD Pump Load) + CDWR Pump Load - 0.2*(SONGS Gen) ) < 99999

  5. SCE Generators for 60/40 rule AceTrona AES Alamitos AES Huntington Beach AguaMansa Alliance Century Alliance Drews Anaheim ARCO BarrePeaker Blythe CC Broadway Canyon Power Center Peaker Clearwater Coolwater Delano Eastwood El Segundo Ellwood Etiwanda Etiwanda Peaker Harbor Hgonzales? High Desert Huntington Beach Inland Empire Long Beach Malburg Mandalay McGrath Peaker Mira Loma Peaker Mohave CT Mountain View Ormand Beach Oxnard P&G CG Pasadena Pastoria Redondo Beach Riverside San Onofre Sentinel Springs Sycamore Victorville Hybrid? Walnut Creek Wildflower SCE Generics SP 15 Dispatch SP 15 ROR

  6. California Cap and Trade • Uncertainty about what GHG costs will be. • $10/ton floor starting 2012 for CA Plants • Escalate at 5% + CPI • Imports: • Unspecified Resource: .435 metric tons/MWh about 8215 mmbtu/MWh on NG • LADWP Intermountain Coal: .95 metric tons/MWh • SB 1368 Coal Imports (2020): 1100lbs/MWh higher Base Load (contract term no longer than 5-years at 50% capacity factor) • GHG Costs downstream from liquid trading hubs: hence no change in wholesale price of NG • Modeling Question: • California as an “island” or WECC-Wide GHG cost? • CA Imports “Hurdle” rate raise to account for emission costs? • Next Steps

  7. N. Cal. Hydro Duration Plot

  8. N. Cal Hydro Actual 2005 The PROMOD hydro dispatch (green) was generally higher than the 2005 actual dispatch (blue). Both depend on the hydro conditions. The period from January through March has the most deviation.

  9. NCal Hydro Actual 2005 Comparisons Overall, the PROMOD results had a higher “dispatch” than the 2005 actual generation. The input assumptions were based on 2003 hydro conditions.

  10. Northwest Surplus • Where is PROMOD finding the energy that is delivered via the COI and PDCI to California? • Is the energy real? • Why are the COI flows higher than historical?

  11. NWPP Load/Resource Balance (1) The generation above the Demand represents the surplus, most of which is being exported to California. In April the exports are a mixture of hydro, nuclear, and coal. Promod serves the load in order of the economic resource stack, without consideration for contractual arrangements.

  12. NWPP Load/Resource Balance (2) In May there is more surplus hydro and probably additional surplus hydro from BC. Still, there is a lot of nuclear and coal that is exported.

  13. NWPP Load/Resource Balance (3) June is similar to May with a good amount of surplus hydro, nuclear and coal. After June the surplus is mostly limited to coal and CC and by August the amount of surplus is substantially less.

  14. Wrap-up and Next meeting • Wrap-up • Next meeting • August 1, 2011 • Note TAS meeting is August 8-9

  15. Questions?

More Related