1 / 43

Study Results Basin Resource Option SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South

Study Results Basin Resource Option SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South.

marlin
Download Presentation

Study Results Basin Resource Option SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South

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. Study ResultsBasin Resource OptionSSPG East SSPG NorthSSPG South This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the Basin Resource Option. The results for the associated transmission expansion projects follow immediately along with flow information on impacted WECC paths.

  2. Study Concept Starting case: 2022 High Load (PC1-5) Increase WECC annual energy demand 8% Results in additional 12,000 GWh of RPS resource requirements (per statutes) Model added 12,000 GWh in regions throughout WECC (w/ transmission) Goal Compare different resource and transmission options Total (capital and production) cost comparisons Will be shown at a later date Renewable Options Under High Load CaseThe Basics

  3. Renewable Options Under High Load Cases Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1 Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2 3 Add transmission For these regions

  4. Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1 8% 8% increase to peak and energy 10% 10% decrease to energy Higher Load = Additional RPS Energy

  5. Add 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2 Extrapolation Method

  6. Resource Option StudiesBreakdown of Incremental 12,000 GWh Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

  7. 1- Check PRM 2 - Add CTs (if needed) = Higher load and new resources

  8. PC1-5 High Load PRM Gap 1) Added CTs in 100 MW increments to make up this 11,426 MW PRM Gap 2) CT’s were adjusted in Renewable Options Under High Load studies

  9. Additional resources change this number

  10. 3 fewer CTs needed in Basin This makes sense: 3,000 MW wind × 10% = 300 MW to peak = 3 fewer CTs

  11. 3 Add transmission • Transmission Expansion Projects Path 8 Upgrade MSTI + SWIP N Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC WY-CO Intertie TransWest Express Zephyr A /B/C/D High Plains Express SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South High Plains Express None Centennial West

  12. Now to the results… • Resource assumption overview • Portfolio Case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load) • Transmission projects overview • Expansion case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load and Portfolio Case) • Path flow results - Reviewed duration plots for key WECC paths.

  13. BasinResource Assumptions + 531 + 27 + 136 + 11 + 207 + 1136 + 455 + 90 + 272 Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

  14. Production cost decreased $355 M (-2%) Dump energy increased 90 GWh (27%) Emergency Energy increased.3% CO2 Emissions decreased 1%

  15. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  16. 10-Year Study ResultsPC24 Basin Resource OptionEC24-1 SSPG EastEC24-2 SSPG NorthEC24-3 SSPG South SSPG North SSPG East SSPG South

  17. E-W • Single-circuit 345 kV from IPP (UT) to Robinson Summit (NV) • Generator collector system did not fit with TEPPC’s modeled resources so this portion was excluded

  18. Production cost decreased $369 M (-2%) Dump energy increased 66 GWh (20%) Emergency Energy decreased .5% CO2 Emissions decreased 1% CA, NV

  19. UT CA, NV UT Production cost decreased $14M (-0%) Dump energy decreased 23 GWh (5%) Emergency Energy decreased .3% CO2 Emissions did not change A little more biomass dispatch

  20. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  21. 10-Year Study ResultsPC24 Basin Resource OptionEC24-1 SSPG EastEC24-2 SSPG NorthEC24-3 SSPG South SSPG North SSPG East SSPG South

  22. East to West East to West Orena – San Emido 345-kV single circuit San Emido – Viewland 345-kV single circuit Viewland – Westwood 230-kV double circuit Westwood – Olinda 230-kV single circuit 230 345 + 531

  23. Production cost decreased $355M (-2%) Dump energy increased 82 GWh (24%) Emergency Energy decreased .5% CO2 Emissions decreased 1% CA, NV Added Basin Renewables

  24. Production cost did not change much Dump energy decreased 7 GWh (1.6%) Emergency Energy decreased .2% CO2 Emissions did not change Note the small scale of the changes

  25. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  26. 10-Year Study ResultsPC24 Basin Resource OptionEC24-1 SSPG EastEC24-2 SSPG NorthEC24-3 SSPG South SSPG North SSPG East SSPG South

  27. + 455 230 • Single-circuit 500 kV from new substation in NV (Esmeralda) to Antelope. • Generator collector system did not fit with TEPPC’s modeled resources so this portion was excluded 500

  28. Production cost decreased $363M (-2%) Dump energy increased 13 GWh (4%) Emergency Energy decreased.3% CO2 Emissions decreased 1% CA, UT, NV Added Basin Renewables

  29. Note the small scale of the changes Production cost did not change Dump energy decreased 76 GWh (18%) Emergency Energy decreased 0% CO2 Emissions did not change

  30. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  31. Questions or thoughts on this study?

More Related