1 / 9

Transmission for a 33% RPS

Transmission for a 33% RPS. Keith E. Casey Vice President Market and Infrastructure Development California ISO The Independent Energy Producers Association 29 th Annual Meeting South Lake Tahoe, California September 22-24, 2010. Planning for a 33% RPS. Where are we and what is left?

verda
Download Presentation

Transmission for a 33% RPS

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. Transmission for a 33% RPS Keith E. Casey Vice President Market and Infrastructure Development California ISO The Independent Energy Producers Association 29th Annual Meeting South Lake Tahoe, California September 22-24, 2010

  2. Planning for a 33% RPS • Where are we and what is left? • How do we plan effectively?

  3. Calculating the “33% RPS Net-Short” Numbers based on CTPG Phase 2 Study

  4. Approved transmission projects could potentially achieve the 33% RPS if fully utilized. Net-Short = 53 TWh

  5. Base case plan will heavily utilize new transmission facilities. • Base case – Generation projects with approved PPAs or in CAISO interconnection queue.

  6. Approved transmission provides a base case for evaluating supplemental needs. • Alternative resource scenarios might be desirable if • Reduce generation procurement costs • Can be developed more expeditiously (siting/land-use issues) • Provide integration benefits through regional diversity • Additional resource scenarios include: • Higher Out-of-State scenario (e.g., RECs) • Higher distributive generation scenario • Potential benefits of different resource procurement scenarios needs to be weighed against any incremental transmission costs.

  7. Next Steps • December 2, 2010 - ISO stakeholder meeting to review draft results of its 33% RPS transmission studies. • January 2011 – Draft report issued • January 2011 (or sooner) – FERC Order on CAISO revised transmission planning process. • March 2011 – ISO releases its 2011 Annual Transmission Plan

  8. California ISO proposed comprehensive revisions to its transmission planning process. • New criterion for “policy-driven” transmission to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020 • Statewide planning approach • Whole system planning instead of single-project approach for a comprehensive transmission plan • Comprehensive planning process for addressing: • Reliability, • Generation interconnections, • Policy-driven (i.e., RPS mandates), and • Economics

  9. FERC notice of proposed rulemaking regarding transmission planning and cost allocation • Five areas of “deficiency” • Lack of requirement for regional plan • Lack of consideration for needs driven by federal and state policy • Obstacles to non-incumbent transmission providers • Lack of coordination between regions • Deficient cost allocation methodologies

More Related