1 / 10

TEPPC Hydro Data Update 9/12/11

TEPPC Hydro Data Update 9/12/11. Christie Dennis. 2005 Data Summary – Median Hydro. CA Data set complete – ready for review New HTC K value/p factor calculations for improved modeling K values derived from 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2010 generation/load data

kail
Download Presentation

TEPPC Hydro Data Update 9/12/11

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. TEPPC Hydro Data Update9/12/11 Christie Dennis

  2. 2005 Data Summary – Median Hydro • CA • Data set complete – ready for review • New HTC K value/p factor calculations for improved modeling • K values derived from 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2010 generation/load data • Reviewed HTC plants, cut some out based on poor K, R2 and added some • Added – King River (Average K = 2.32, Average R2 = 0.29) • Removed – Devil Canyon (Average K = 0.95 ,Average R2 = 0.19) • NW • Data set complete – ready for review • Big 4 plants • K values derived from 1999, 2001-2003, 2005-2010, adjusted for wind reserves • New HTC plants • Mossyrock, Oxbow, Pelton, Ross • East • Data set complete – ready for review • New HTC plants • Hoover, Blue Mesa • Alberta • Data set complete – ready for review • New HTC plants • Bow River, Brazeau, Bighorn

  3. CA K value adjustments • Averaging several water years smoothes K value – lower standard deviation • 2022 – 2002, 2003, 2005, 2010 • 2020 – 2002, 2003, 2005

  4. CA K value adjustments • Improved standard deviations in nearly all cases

  5. NW K value adjustments • Averaging several water years smoothes K value – lower standard deviation • 2022 – 1999, 2001-2003, 2005-2010 • 2020 – 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006

  6. NW K value adjustments • Improved standard deviations in all cases

  7. CA HTC plants • Big Creek (K Ave = 1.21 ) • Big Creek 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 8; Mammoth Pool • King River (K Ave = 2.32 ) • Balch 2, Haas, Pine Flat • Mokelumne River (K Ave = 1.14 ) • Collierville, Electra, Salt Springs, Tiger Creek • North Feather River (K Ave = 1.52, 2.05 ) • Belden, Poe, Rock Creek, Butt Valley, Caribou 1 & 2 • Pit 4, JB Black (K Ave = 1.94 ) • Pit 5 (K Ave = 1.55 ) • Pit 6 & 7 (K Ave = 1.97 ) • SMUD (K Ave = 2.70 ) • Camino, Jaybird, Loon Lake, Union Valley, White Rock

  8. NW additions, East, Alberta HTC plants • Mossyrock(K Ave = 3.52, R2 Ave = 0.47 ) • Oxbow (K Ave = 1.75, R2 Ave = 0.23 ) • Pelton(K Ave = 2.39, R2 Ave = 0.50 ) • Ross (K Ave = 2.81, R2 Ave = 0.31 ) • Hoover (K Ave = 2.69, R2 Ave = 0.45 ) • Blue Mesa (K Ave = 5.0, R2 Ave = 0.28 ) • Bow River (K Ave = 5.0, R2 Ave = 0.6 ) • Brazeau(K Ave = 6.0, R2 Ave = 0.45 ) • Bighorn (K Ave = 2.44, R2 Ave = 0.21 )

  9. 2010 Hindcast Data • CA • Aggregate data collected • EIA data collected, incomplete until sometime in the Fall • Can use aggregate/roll up methodology developed for 2005 dataset • NW • COE plant data collected and formatted • EIA plant data collected, not complete until the Fall • K values, p factors calculated • East • EIA plant data collected, not complete until the Fall • East hard data collected

  10. 2001 Data – Low Hydro • CA • No aggregate data collected • EIA data collected • No CVP data • NW • COE plant data collected • EIA/plant data collected • K values, p factors calculated • East • EIA plant data collected • Data collected from Sam Loftin

More Related