1 / 46

Study Results PC8-PC16 System Stress Tests

Study Results PC8-PC16 System Stress Tests. This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the various stress tests performed on the 2022 Common Case. The results of the studies are shown along with an indicator to show the robustness of transmission in that area.

thuraya-chaka
Download Presentation

Study Results PC8-PC16 System Stress Tests

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 ResultsPC8-PC16 System Stress Tests This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the various stress tests performed on the 2022 Common Case. The results of the studies are shown along with an indicator to show the robustness of transmission in that area.

  2. 10-Year Stress Test Results • Description and goal • Assumptions • Results

  3. Study Description and Goal

  4. Stress Test Cases – two concepts… PC8-PC15 – Add 6,000 GWh Renewables PC16 – RPS Off-Ramp

  5. Summary“Examine the Robustness of the Power Grid” • Evaluate system’s ability to integrate and deliver added resources to load, subject to transmission constraints • “Stress” the system • Proxy for • High gas (makes RE more competitive) • High load (requires higher RPS and more RE) • CO2 Policy (less thermal, more RE) • Increase in RPS (more RE) • Studies are designed as indicators Help us to understand how the system may behave under a variety of future conditions. This is robust planning.

  6. Caveats • No additional transmission added • Small addition of RE will not solely justify addition of large interregional project • Capital cost analysis will not be performed as it is outside the intent of the study

  7. Study Assumptions

  8. Stress Test: PC8-PC15Resource Selection Process Extrapolation Method

  9. Resources from CPUC scenario that were originally decremented for Common Case net-short are added Solar +1000 GWh Evaluated as one 6,000 GWh study. Resource split 50/50 in each Basin state. Per CPUC Geothermal -1000 GWh

  10. Stress Test: PC16Resource Removal Process Remove WECC LRS Data Collection Manual

  11. Common Case Results Refresher

  12. Implementation Indicators Construction Status Financial Indicators Regional Significance Selection based on →

  13. Potential “area of concern” High utilization can be explained or is expected

  14. Flow: NW to BC Flow: BC to NW

  15. IPP generation

  16. Common Trends 1 System seems to be fairly robust given the CCTA and Common Case starting point of system utilization. 3 Heavier utilization, not much congestion (i.e., the transmission system still permits economic transfer). 2 When more renewable energy is added to the system, gas appears to be the marginal resource in all studies (except Montana), given our current price assumptions. CA gas units are “most marginal.”

  17. California Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Stress test had only minor impact on transmission utilization. Including additional generation in CA reduces requirement for imports. Robustness Indicator

  18. Arizona Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Increase in AZ to CA imports. Congestion on P29. More detailed analysis required. Robustness Indicator

  19. New Mexico Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Increase in P22 (SW of 4-Corners) utilization, but not congested. Other paths are not heavily impacted. Robustness Indicator

  20. Wyoming Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Some sensitivity observed – P29 and P36. Large change in RMPA to Basin flow. Robustness Indicator

  21. Montana Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Robustness Indicator P8 congested as a result. MT system is relatively isolated and is easily stressed.

  22. Washington Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Small impact. Robustness Indicator

  23. Oregon Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Very little congestion observed. Robustness Indicator

  24. Basin Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Increased utilization, but not much congestion. Robustness Indicator

  25. RPS Off-Ramp Stress Test Assumptions Transmission Results Generation Impacts Key Finding Decrease in congestion outweighs increase. Side bar: Is it apparent that our system designed for “RPS compliance” is highly versatile and can accommodate more “local” generation? Robustness Indicator

  26. Quick Summary NA NA Robustness Indicator NA NA

  27. Questions or thoughts on this study?

More Related