280 likes | 387 Views
“DRAFT” RMATS 2008 Base Case (To be presented at the RMATS Stakeholders Meeting). March 17, 2004. Overview. Modeling Approach Purpose & Scope – Base Case Key Assumptions Base Case Results. Modeling Approach. Modeled with ABB Market Simulator Production cost model
E N D
“DRAFT” RMATS 2008 Base Case (To be presented at the RMATS Stakeholders Meeting) March 17, 2004
Overview • Modeling Approach • Purpose & Scope – Base Case • Key Assumptions • Base Case Results RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Modeling Approach • Modeled with ABB Market Simulator • Production cost model • West-wide scope with a particular focus on the RMATS region • Detailed transmission representation • Calculates nodal / bus prices (LMPs) • Hourly resolution • LP dispatch optimization is based on: • Treatment of hydro and wind generation • Single test year – 2008 RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
LMPs: Marginal Costs at the Nodal Bus Level • The cost of delivering the next 1 MW of power to a particular location, or the savings from reducing load by 1 MW at that location (sometimes called shadow price) • In concept, transmission congestion (bottlenecks) an losses cause differences in marginal prices at the nodal/bus level • LMPs are calculated separately for loads and generation • LMPs tend to decrease as relatively low cost resources are added • High wind capacity sensitivity is an example • Targeted transmission investments levelize/stabilize marginal prices because congestion is relieved but the investment cost may outweigh the benefit RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Modeling Limitations • Modeling assumes a single, seamless west-wide market with no rate or loss pancaking • LP optimizes dispatch on a west-wide basis (perfect knowledge) • Not modeled: • Must-run generation • Unit commitment • Transmission wheeling and loss charges • Generator forced outages • Contractual / tariff constraints • Bid behavior • Sub-hourly operations • Actual heat rate curves- approximate only RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Implications of Modeling Approach • Tends to make fuller, more optimal use of transmission than operations currently allow • Analogous to a seamless, single RTO world • Tends to mask the tariff and contractual constraints of today • Makes wind appear more economic because fewer constraints lead to greater dispatch • Fifteen percent planning margin used may be conservative • Margin is calculated off nameplate • Covers generator forced outages and operating reserves that ABB MS does not model RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Base Case Objectives • Focus on congestion and congestion costs • Assess the current system • Include existing system, plus new, viable investment already in progress • Identify incidence and duration of congestion • Estimate the resulting congestion costs • Include several load, gas price, and hydro sensitivities • Review plant performance • Illuminate opportunities for cost-effective projects • Estimate the incremental value of expansion on congested paths Base Case Runs * 2013 loads applied to 2008 resources and transmission RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Key Assumption Summary http://psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/subregional/home.htm RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
System “Balloon” Diagram RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Loads – 2008 Base Case Based on WECC L&R Forecast issued in 2003, with updates for Rocky Mountain States Annual GWh with Coincidental Summer & Winter Peaks (GW) Mexico - CFE Summer: 2.5 Winter: 2.2 NWPP-Canada Summer: 16.6 Winter: 20.3 14,425 California 130,743 Summer: 58.4 Winter: 44.8 NWPP-US 309,324 165,719 Summer: 24.1 Winter: 30.8 156,763 143,595 AZ, NM & S. NV Rocky Mt. States Summer: 31.2 Winter: 24.7 Summer: 24.6 Winter: 21.4 Load: 920,569 GWh Summer Peak: 157 GW RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Resource Additions- 2008 Base Case Incremental Additions 2008 Rocky Mountain Area Total Resources (MW) Total Capacity 29,121 MW • All plants in service by2006 • Does not include additional wind capacity of 1750 MW RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Hydro, DSM, Wind – 2008 Base Case • Hydro • Hydro generation is simulated for median water conditions • Used SSG-WI hourly shapes for Canada and the Northwest • DSM • For the 2008 Base Case, efficiency and DSM programs are decremented against loads in the WECC forecast • Wind • High wind sensitivity - added 1742 MW nameplate to the 508 MW in the base case, bringing the total to 2250 MW of wind in the Rocky Mountain Area • Did not consider transmission impacts other than on monitored interfaces (feasibility may require significant transmission additions) RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Base Case Observations • The top 5 congested paths in the Rocky Mountain sub-region are also export-related paths: • Idaho to Montana • TOT 2C • Bridger West • IPP DC • TOT 3 RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
LMP PricesAverage Annual RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
No congested paths! January 2008 Monthly Average LMP$4 Gas RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
June 2008 Monthly Average LMP$4 Gas Congested Paths: Northwest to Canada Idaho to Montana Bridger West COI Significant N-S Congestion RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
June 12, 2008 hr 06$4 Gas Significant S-N Congestion RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
June 12, 2008 hr 12$4 Gas Significant N-S Congestion RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
June 12, 2008 hr 15$4 Gas Significant N-S Congestion RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Key RM Transmission Constraints$4 gas, 2008 loads, base wind * $4 Gas- H load- $26,325; 12% RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Key Transmission Constraints $4 gas, 2008 loads, base case wind Top Congested Paths RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Western Interconnect Impact for 2008$4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
Idaho to Montana($4 gas, 2008 loads, base case wind)Potential solution • Potential Solution • Added phase shifter at Peterson Flats to Amps • Results • System-wide “VOM” cost decreases by ~$5 million in 2008 • Decreases binding congestion to 1% from 5% of the time • Path loading increases by 1,673 MWh 1,102,119 MWh BEFORE 5% S N 1,103,792 MWh AFTER 1% S N RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
IPP DC($4 gas, 2008 loads, base case wind)Potential solution • Potential Solution • Increased line rating by 500 MW NE to SW (Forward limit ~ 2400 MW) • Results • System wide “VOM” cost decreases by ~$4.6 million • Line loading increases by 2,863,577 MWh • Decreases binding congestion to 57% from 72% of the time BEFORE 72% 14,952,799 MWh NE SW 57% 17,816,376 MWh AFTER NE SW RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004
SW Wyoming to Bonanza($4 gas, 2008 loads, base case wind)Potential solution • Potential Solution • Increased line rating by 100 MW (increase line limit to 300 MW from 200MW); this can be accomplished by adding a transformer and possibly line compensation. • Results • System wide cost decreases by ~$4.3 million; hydro model does not allow hydro redispatch. • Line loading increases by 7,170 MWh • Alleviates binding congestion, which now occur 3% of the time 909,604 MWh BEFORE 3% N S AFTER 902,434 MWh N S RMATS 2008 Base Case- March 17, 2004