R.12-03-014: LTPP Track II Workshop – Operating Flexibility Modeling Results

1. R.12-03-014: LTPP Track II Workshop – Operating Flexibility Modeling Results Patrick Young Analyst, Generation & Transmission Planning California Public Utilities Commission August 26, 2013

2. RemoteAccess WebEx: Meeting Number: 748 742 472 Meeting Password: LTPPhttps://van.webex.com/van/j.php?ED=217130507&UID=491292852&PW=NNTYyYTRhMmM0&RT=MiM0 Call in: Phone #: 866-812-8481 Passcode: 9058288# Remember to use *6 on your phone to mute or unmute: Upon entry to the call, please place yourself on mute, and remain on mute unless you are asking a question 2

3. Agenda 3

4. Workshop Logistics Restrooms are out the Auditorium doors and down the far end of the hallway In the event of an emergency evacuation, please go to the Opera House courtyard, across from City Hall 4

5. LTPP Schedule 5

6. Thank you! For Additional Information: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm

7. Review of Scenario Assumptions and Deterministic Results CPUC LTPP Track 2 Workshop August 26, 2013 Shucheng Liu, Ph.D. Principal, Market Development

8. About 2012 Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) Track 2 system operational flexibility study • CPUC requested the ISO conduct a system operational flexibility modeling study using the Standardized Planning Assumptions and Scenarios as determined in the CPUC Dec 24, 2012 decision (12-03-014). • ISO conducts the operational flexibility study using a Plexos production cost simulation model. • ISO studies: 1) Base scenario, 2) Replicating TPP scenario, 3) High DG-DSM scenario, and 4) Base scenario with SONGS. * SONGS is retired in the first three scenarios. Assessment of local reliability needs without SONGs is address by separate studies.

9. Agenda • Model data sources • Scenario assumption comparison • Preliminary deterministic simulation results

10. Model Data Sources

11. The Plexos production cost simulation model uses data from multiple sources. CPUC RPS Calculator 2010 LTPPStudy Group 5Assumptions CPUC Scenario Tool v5 2012 LTPP Plexos Model TEPPC 2022 PC1 Case & WECC 2012 LRS Report CEC 2012 IPER & 2013 IPER Preliminary ISO Operation Data ISO Master Generating Capability List Additional CPUC and CEC Inputs

12. Load forecasts and load shapes are drawn from several data sources. TEPPC 2022 PC1 Case & WECC 2012 LRS Report Outside CALoad Forecast Outside CA Load Profiles WECC All Load Shapes ISO 2009-2011 Pump Load Profiles CA Load Profiles CEC 2012 IPER CA Load Forecast & Incremental Adjustment CPUC Scenario Tool v5

13. California renewable generation portfolios follow the CPUC scenario definitions. Outside CA Renewable Generation Profiles TEPPC 2022 PC1 Case & WECC 2012 LRS Report CA Renewable Generation Profiles CPUC Renewable Generation Shapes CA Resources portfolios CPUC RPS Calculator

14. Generation resource information is primarily taken from TEPPC 2022 PC1 Case. Outside CA Resources & Characteristics TEPPC 2022 PC1 Case & WECC 2012 LRS Report CA Resources & Characteristics ISO Master Generating Capability List CA Demand Response CPUC Scenario Tool v4

15. CEC provided staff forecast of natural gas prices. • Comparison of natural gas price forecasts for 2012 and 2010 LTPP studies

16. Scenario Assumption Comparison

17. Aggregated demand and supply assumptions SONG is retired in three of the four scenarios.

18. Base scenario load forecast and adjustments

19. High DG-DSM scenario load forecast and adjustments

20. Replicating TPP scenario load forecast and adjustments

21. California RPS net short calculation

22. California RPS renewable portfolios

23. 70% of out-state RPS renewable generation is imported into California in all scenarios. • The shift from Hourly Schedule to Intra-Hour Schedule reflect combination of FERC Order 764 and Energy Imbalance Market • The scheduling assumptions affect Regulation and Load-Following requirements calculated in Step 1

24. Step 1 regulation and load following requirement calculation uses t-30 minute forecast errors.

25. Using t-30 min forecast errors resulted in slightly lower load-following requirements.

26. SCIT and California import limits

27. Demand response resource capacity, triggering prices, and availabilities Note: The demand response assumptions were made in 2010 LTPP study and scaled proportionally to match the total capacity in the 2012 LTPP Track 2 study scenarios.

28. Preliminary Deterministic Simulation Results

29. Upward ancillary services and load-following shortages Note: Rep TPP scenario 5,359 MW shortage includes 359 MW Unserved Energy

30. Number of hours with upward ancillary services and load-following shortages

31. Annual CO2 emission by California generation

32. Average CO2 emission from California generation

33. Annual CO2 emission to meet California load

34. Annual production cost to meet California load

35. The ISO annual total net import

36. The ISO maximum net import and export

37. Net import distribution of the Base scenario Note: there are 179 hours with net export

38. Net import distribution of the High DG-DSM scenario Note: there are 691 hours with net export

39. Net import distribution of the Replicating TPP scenario Note: there are 92 hours with net export

40. California annual average capacity factors of selected types of units

41. California annual average starts of selected types of units

42. ISO energy balance on peak-load day in the Replicating TPP scenario

43. Available capacity is insufficient on peak-load day in the Replicating TPP scenario.

44. Resource dispatch on peak-load day in the Replicating TPP scenario.

45. ISO energy balance on a Spring day in the High DG-DSM scenario

46. Takeaway based on the preliminary results: • Demand response program should revised to extend and reduce shortage window • Local capacity requirements without SONGs is a separate assessment but should be considered into residual system shortage results • Assessment of alternatives needs to be considered

47. Thank you! Shucheng Liu, Ph.D. California ISO sliu@caiso.com