1 / 19

CVP Cost Allocation Public Workshop – January 18, 2013

CVP Cost Allocation Public Workshop – January 18, 2013. “PLEXOS Methodology and Assumptions”. Methodology Summary Estimate value of CVP power by comparing the differential costs for two scenarios: With fully-functional CVP Without CVP, but with replacement portfolio

gordon
Download Presentation

CVP Cost Allocation Public Workshop – January 18, 2013

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. CVP Cost Allocation Public Workshop – January 18, 2013 “PLEXOS Methodology and Assumptions”

  2. Methodology Summary • Estimate value of CVP power by comparing the differential costs for two scenarios: • With fully-functional CVP • Without CVP, but with replacement portfolio • Study is performed with CVP constraints modeled • PLEXOS is used to determine the difference in variable costs between the two scenarios • Capital and fixed operating costs are from another source

  3. PLEXOS Overview • Fundamental market simulation model (supply and demand) • Minimizes total market cost for all variables: • Energy and ancillary services (AS) • Fuel and variable operating expenses • Emission costs (if modeled) • Wheeling costs and losses • Subject to 1000s of constraints: • System load and AS • Plant performance • Transmission capability • Uncertainty of variable-energy resources

  4. Solving UC/ED using MIP • Unit Commitment and Economical Dispatch can be formulated as a linear problem (after linearization) with integer variables of generator on-line status Minimize Cost = generator fuel and VOM cost + generator start cost + contract purchase cost – contract sale saving + transmission wheeling + energy / AS / fuel / capacity market purchase cost – energy / AS / fuel / capacity market sale revenue Subject to • Energy balance constraints • Operation reserve constraints • Generator and contract chronological constraints: ramp, min up/down, min capacity, etc. • Generator and contract energy limits: hourly / daily / weekly / … • Transmission limits • Fuel limits: pipeline, daily / weekly/ … • Emission limits: daily / weekly / … • Others

  5. Long-term security assessment Maintenance planning and outageassessment Mid-term simulation Resolve and price emission /fuel/ energy constraints Short–term simulation Full chronological simulation Integration of Mid- and Short-Term Constraints • PLEXOS includes three integrated algorithms: • Long-, mid-, and short-term • Three perspectives are seamlessly integrated • Mid-term simulation decomposes hydro, fuel, emission, and energy constraints for the short-term simulation • CALSIM monthly output decomposed into daily amounts for short-term

  6. Detailed Generator Modeling • General chronological constraints modeled, i.e., • Minimum up and down time • Ramp up and down rate • Minimum capacity with hourly economic or must-run status • Reserve (regulation up/down, spinning and non-spinning) provision capacities • Start cost as a function of number of hours being down • Forbidden operation zone • User-specified fuel mixture / mixture ranges or model-determined fuel mixture • Heat Rate as a function of fuel types • Average heat rate for multiple loading points • Incremental heat rate for multiple loading points • Polynomial fuel-generation IO curve • Emission rate with removal rate • Initial commitment and dispatch status

  7. Combined Cycle Modeling, continued Fuel=1.68e+9 Btu Energy content of electricity = 3412 Btu/kWh Gen=160 MWh ~ Duct Burner Fuel=1.45e+8 Btu Waste=1.134e+9 Btu HR=10500 Btu/kWh Efficiency=32.5% 1.96004e+9 Btu ~ Fuel=1.68e+9 Btu HR=10316 Btu/kWh Efficiency=33% Gen=160 MWh Boiler efficiency = 80% ~ Waste=1.134e+9 Btu HR=10500 Btu/kWh Efficiency=32.5%

  8. PLEXOS Hydro Modeling • Inflows, storages, plants, and spills are modeled and optimized on an hourly basis • In terms of either acre-feet (volume) or MWh • The hydro contribution is maximized given energy and AS markets (or system requirements) • Hydro is fully integrated with the thermal (hydro-thermal integration) and is perfectly arbitraged against all available markets

  9. Storage I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H 1 H 2 P/S 3 H 5 P/S 1 H 3 P/S 2 H 6 H 4 Storage II Storage VI Storage III Storage V An Example of Cascaded Hydro System Inflow Inflow Inflow Inflow Sea

  10. LT-Plan: PLEXOS for Integrated Resource Planning • Alternative portfolio development methodology • Objective: Minimize net present value of forward-looking costs (i.e. capital, fixed operating and production costs) Cost ($) Total Cost C(x) + P(x) Capital Cost C(x) Production Cost P(x) Optimal Investment x* Investment x

  11. Hydro Value • Energy • Ancillary services • Fast ramp (up and down) • No greenhouse gas

  12. Primary Data Sources • WECC TEPPC (Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee) regional database (version PCO) • CA Utility LTPP (Long-Term Power Plan) revisions and updates for CA • CVP-specific information

  13. Selected Examples of Data Input to PLEXOS • Simulation year – 2020 • Base year for dollars – 2010 • CA hydro aggregated in two zones • Northern and Southern California • CVP extracted from aggregated hydro

  14. Data Inputs II • CAISO 2011-2020 Changes (MW) • Summer Peak Load • Summer peak load = 6,200 MW • Demand-side reductions = 8,100 MW • Net peak summer load = (1,900 MW) • Summer Generation Capacity • Retirements = 13,100 MW • New additions = 11,100 MW (Thermal, RPS) • Net summer capacity = 2,000 MW • primarily RPS and OTC replacement

  15. Data Inputs III • CAISO 2011-2020 Changes (MW) • Renewable Portfolios • In-state = 14,200 MW • Out-of-state = 5,093 • In-state renewable types • Hydro = 0 MW • PV Solar = 4,600 MW • Solar Thermal = 3,600 MW • Wind = 5,034 MW • Out-of-state renewable • Wind = 5,000 MW

  16. Data Inputs IV • Natural gas prices (2010 $) • PG&E Citygate -- $5.61 / MMBtu (delivery to burner-tip adds 7 to 23 cents / MMBtu) • SoCal Border -- $5.41 / MMBtu (delivery adds 44 cents / MMBTU) • Current Price (1/4/2013) -- $3.30 to $3.60 / MMBtu (source: California Energy Markets) • CO2 Emission Price (2010 $) • $36.30 (short-ton CO2) • CA Net Exchange (summer peak) • 16,400 MW

  17. Questions?

  18. Selected Acronyms • AS – Ancillary Services • CAES – Compressed air energy storage • CAISO – CA Independent System Operator • CO2 – Carbon dioxide • LTPP – Long-Term Procurement Plan • OTC – Once-Through Cooling • TEPPC – Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee (WECC regional database for market simulation purposes) • WECC – Western Electric Coordinating Council

  19. References • LTTP data assumptions – http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2011-08-10_ErrataLTPPTestimony_R10-05-006.pdf

More Related