View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PC04 & PC05 Hydro Study Case Results
Anna Beus
October 3, 2016
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
PC04 & PC05 Hydro Modeling Logic
2
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Assumptions
• High Hydro Year• Low Hydro Year
Production Cost Model
Scope
• Scope• Key Questions
Results
• Generation Dispatch
• Path Flows• Cost• Dump Energy
High and Low Hydro Studies
• Study Requestor: PG&E
• Changes from 2026CC:
– PC04: 2011 hydro data substituted for median hydro data (2005) for high hydro case
– PC05: 2001 hydro data substituted for median hydro data (2005) for low hydro case
• Key Question:
– How does production cost, generation dispatch, and transmission utilization change under high and low hydro conditions?
*No changes were made to transmission or load
3
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Generation Results
4
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
Conventional Hydro
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
IC
Other
DG/DR/EE - Incremental
Biomass RPS
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
Annual Generation by Category (GWh)
2026 PC1 V1.3 2026 PC4 High Hydro 2026 PC5 Low Hydro
Production Cost and CO2
5
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Annual Generation by Category (GWh)
Category 2026 PC1 V1.32026 PC4 High
Hydro2026 PC5 Low
Hydro % Difference High
vs. V1.3% Difference Low
vs. V1.3
Conventional Hydro 234,570 282,538 189,678 20% -19%
Energy Storage 2,962 2,642 2,973 -11% 0%
Steam - Coal 194,852 185,099 201,391 -5% 3%
Steam - Other 1,873 1,633 2,155 -13% 15%
Nuclear 39,192 38,972 39,493 -1% 1%
Combined Cycle 265,714 233,284 294,961 -12% 11%
Combustion Turbine 35,356 32,959 40,650 -7% 15%
IC 977 501 1,849 -49% 89%
DG/DR/EE - Incremental 33,550 33,550 33,550 0% 0%
Biomass RPS 21,328 20,467 24,024 -4% 13%
Geothermal 41,156 40,905 41,172 -1% 0%
Small Hydro RPS 3,738 3,989 2,702 7% -28%
Solar 45,659 45,101 45,636 -1% 0%
Wind 73,989 73,793 73,986 0% 0%
== Total == 994,915 995,433 994,220 0% 0%
Other Results
Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 17,795 15,985 19,709 -10% 11%
CO2 Cost (M$) 3,613 3,411 3,874 -6% 7%
CO2 Amount (MMetrTn) 317 294 340 -7% 7%
Dump Energy (GWh) 601 1,355 629 126% 5%
Pumping (PL+PS) (GWh) 11,875 11,395 11,860 -4% 0%
Exports (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0
Changes in Total Annual Generation (PC04)
6
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
(40,000) (20,000) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Conventional Hydro
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
IC
Other
DG/DR/EE - Incremental
Biomass RPS
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
Annual Energy Difference (GWh): 2026 WECC V1.3 vs 2026 PC4 V1.3
Changes in Total Annual Generation (PC05)
7
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
(50,000) (40,000) (30,000) (20,000) (10,000) 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Conventional Hydro
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
IC
Other
DG/DR/EE - Incremental
Biomass RPS
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
Annual Energy Difference (GWh): 2026 WECC V1.3 vs 2026 PC5 V1.3
Generation Change by State (PC04)
8
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
AB AZ BC CA CO ID MT MX NE NM NV OR SD TX UT WA WY
Annual Gen Change (GWh) 2026 WECC V1.3 vs 2026 PC4 V1.3
Conventional Hydro
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
IC
Other
Biomass RPS
DG/DR/EE - Incremental
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
Generation Change by State (PC05)
9
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
AB AZ BC CA CO ID MT MX NE NM NV OR SD TX UT WA WY
Annual Gen Change (GWh) 2026 WECC V1.3 vs 2026 PC5 V1.3
Conventional Hydro
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
IC
Other
Biomass RPS
DG/DR/EE - Incremental
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
Results – Most Heavily Utilized Paths
• Congestion vs Utilization– Some lines are designed to be congested
• “Most Heavily Utilized” = A path that meets any one of the following criterion (10-year plan utilization screening):– U75 > 50%
– U90 > 20%
– U99 > 5%
• Uxx = % of year that flow is greater than xx% of the path limit
10
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Results – Changes in Transmission Utilization (PC04)
11
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
P45 SDG&E-CFE
Most Heavily Utilized Paths
Path Name 75% 90% 99%
P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line 41.40% 30.70% 0.00%
-P52 Silver Peak-Control 55 kV 36.94% 22.12% 0.00%
-P60 Inyo – Control 115 kV Tie 51.30% 21.96% 0.00%
P01 Alberta – British Columbia 27.08% 15.72% 7.32%
P45 SDG&E – CFE 17.18% 13.52% 11.37%
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P26 Northern-Southern California
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P47 Southern New Mexico
P08 Montana to Northwest
P60 Inyo-Control
P27 IPP DC Line
P10 West of Colstrip
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
P65 PDCIP66 COI
P16 Idaho-Sierra
P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line
P52 Silver Peak-Control
P80 Montana Southeast
P45 SDG&E-CFE
Results – Changes in Transmission Utilization (PC05)
12
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
P45 SDG&E-CFE
Most Heavily Utilized Paths
Path Name 75% 90% 99%
-P60 Inyo – Control 115 kV Tie 57.07% 31.30% 0.00%
-P52 Silver Peak-Control 55 kV 45.18% 31.05% 0.00%
-P80 Montana Southeast 51.55% 15.57% 1.45%
P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line 20.48% 12.65% 0.18%
P45 SDG&E – CFE 13.26% 9.63% 7.79%
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P26 Northern-Southern California
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P47 Southern New Mexico
P08 Montana to Northwest
P60 Inyo-Control
P27 IPP DC Line
P10 West of Colstrip
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
P65 PDCIP66 COI
P16 Idaho-Sierra
P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line
P52 Silver Peak-Control
P80 Montana Southeast
P45 SDG&E-CFE
Results – PC04 High Hydro
13
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ho
urs
Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2026_PC4 High Hydro
U75 U90 U99
Results – PC05 Low Hydro
14
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ho
urs
Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2026_PC5 Low Hydro
U75 U90 U99
Path 65 Flows
15
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Path 66 Flows
16
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Path 83 Flows
17
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Path 01 Flows
18
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Findings
• Generation and Energy Changes:– Increased hydro availability Reduction of combined cycle,
coal (steam), and combustion turbine generation– Decreased hydro availability Increased combined cycle, coal
(steam), combustion turbine generation
• Transmission Changes:– Transmission impacts are minimal and the interconnection
seems to be able to operate reliably under both hydro conditions.
• Production Cost Changes:– Increased hydro availability Lower production cost and
carbon emissions– Decreased hydro availability Increased production cost and
carbon emissions
19
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
Questions
Anna Beus
abeus@wecc.biz
(801) 819-7666
20
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L
mailto:abeus@wecc.bizRecommended