2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan 33% RPS Calculator Training California Public Utilities Commission January 7, 2011

2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan

33% RPS Calculator Training

California Public Utilities Commission

January 7, 2011

• Proceeding status and scope of today’s training

• Scenario creation methodology and role of Calculator

• Significant changes since June draft

• Updated results

• Introduction to Model– Control Panel– Results– Selected_byYear and DeliveredAndNQC_byYear– Inputs – where they are and how to adjust– TxInputs– Output Module

• Examples: “How do I…?”

Agenda

2

3

Proceeding Status

• December 3 Scoping Memo requires IOUs to file long-term procurement plans that accommodate seven RPS scenarios:– Trajectory: 20%, 33%; 33% High Load; 33% Low Load – 33% Environmentally-constrained– 33% Cost-constrained– 33% Time-constrained

• Next step: Utilities file required scenarios with plans; utilities and parties file alternative scenarios

• Schedule for Phase 1 will change; stay tuned

4

Scope of Today’s Training

• Today: a training on the 33% RSP Calculator used to create the 7 required scenarios, to help parties:– Understand the inputs and methodology that resulted in the

required scenarios– Identify inputs and assumptions that drive the Calculator’s

results– Learn how to use the Calculator to test the impact of different

inputs, assumptions, and methodologies and create alternative scenarios

• Not in scope: why the Commission adopted particular standardized planning assumptions, or how party comments on the draft assumptions were considered

5




• Updated results

• Introduction to Model– Control Panel– Results– Selected_byYear and DeliveredAndNQC_byYear– Inputs – where they are and how to adjust– TxInputs– Output Module


Agenda

General Approach

• Determine renewable resource gap (GWh) in 2020

• Compile database of resources available to meet RPS target

• Rank available resources based on cost, commercial interest, environmental sensitivity and timeline

• Select resources to fill renewable resource gap

6

Renewable Net Short

33 33 33

20

54

0

20

40

60

80

100

2009 2020, 20% RPS 2020, 33% RPS

Ren

ewab

le G

ener

atio

n (

TW

h)

Existing Resources RPS Net Short

7

8

Approach to Scenario Development

RPS generation

under contract or negotiation

w/ CA byQ2 2010 Discounted

Core

Cost-constrained

Scenario

Time-constrained

Scenario

Environmentally-constrained

Scenario

Trajectory Scenario

Balanced Scenario?

RPS generation

delivering to CA by

Q1 2010

33%of2020 Retail Sales

Sources of New Resources to Fill Net Short

1. Commercial Projects– ED Database of IOU projects

– POU procurement plan data obtained from CARB

2. Additional “Theoretical” Projects– RETI pre-identified and proxy projects for California

– WREZ projects for the rest of the WECC

3. Original Renewable DG resource potential estimates– Developed as part of 2010 LTPP

9

Transmission and Geographic Classification of Resources

Each resource is assigned one of three classifications:

1. CREZ: resources located within one of the 48 Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (either in California or in other states)

2. Non-CREZ: resources in California or directly across the border that are not located within a CREZ and can be delivered with minor transmission upgrades

3. Out-of-State REC: out-of-state resources that would deliver energy to the local market

10

Out-of-State RECs

• Default assumption is no limitation on OOS RECs

• RECs are unbundled– Energy and Capacity (if applicable) are sold into the

local market– Reflects the economic reality of a variety of proposed

REC treatments

• REC Resources are assumed to be lower quality, near existing transmission

• Even without restriction, REC penetration tops out at 31.5% (in the Timeline Case)

11

Existing/Planned Transmission Capacity

• CAISO identified existing and planned transmission that could deliver renewables to load

MW of Available Capacity on Existing Transmission (No Upgrades)

MW of Available Capacity on Existing Transmission (Minor Upgrades)

Carrizo South 300 900Imperial 0 1125Kramer 0 62Palm Springs 1000 1000Pisgah 0 275Riverside East 1500 1500Round Mountain 100 100San Bernardino - Lucerne 261 261San Diego South 400 761Solano 0 300Tehachapi 4500 5825Westlands 0 800

12

Project Scoring Methodology

• Each project is scored on a 0-100 scale based on four metrics (0 is better):

– Net Cost Score

– Environmental Score

– Commercial Interest Score

– Timing Score

• Final score used to rank a project for any one scenario is a weighted average of the four individual metrics

– Weights are user-defined and vary by scenario

13

Resource Selection Methodology

1. Calculate project score for each resource

2. Allocate lowest cost out-of-state theoretical projects to other states until all non-CA WECC RPS targets for 2020 are satisfied

3. Rank remaining CREZ projects and select to fill transmission bundles

4. Calculate aggregate score for each transmission bundle

5. Rank transmission bundles against individual non-CREZ and REC resources

6. Select resources and bundles to meet 33% RPS target in 2020

14

Sort for Local Use

Potential CREZ Resources Potential Non-CREZ and REC Resources

Sort for CA Use as RECs

Sort for CA Use Towards RPS

Resources Remaining After Local Sort

Sort for Existing Tx

Resources on Existing Transmission

Resources Remaining After Existing Tx Sort

Sort for New Tx

New Transmission Bundles

Resources Remaining After Local Sort

Non-CREZ and REC Resource Rankings

Resources Selected for Local Use

Resources Selected for CA RPS Portfolio15

• Cost score is based on a modified version of the RETI Ranking Cost

• Includes integration and T&D avoided costs

• Scores are converted to 0 – 100 scale, bounded by the model’s lowest and highest net cost resources

Modified RETI Ranking Cost

+ Levelized cost of energy

+ Interconnection (gen-tie) costs

+ Deemed integration costs

+ Levelized, per-MWh incremental transmission costs

– T&D avoided costs

– Energy value

– Capacity value

= Final project ranking cost

Net Cost Score

16

17

• Handicaps resources in areas where environmental issues might hinder development

• Considers a variety of factors:– Disturbed lands– Right-of-Way– Significant species– Air quality– Others

• Weights scores by land use per GWh generated

Environmental Score

CREZ NameBiogas - Landfill Biomass

Biomass - Intl

Geothermal

Hydro - Small

Large Scale

Solar PV

Small Scale PV -- Rooftop

Small Scale PV

-- Brownfiel

Small Scale PV

-- Greenfiel

Solar Thermal Wind

Baja 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 78.1 - - - 78.1 23.3

Barstow 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 80.9 - - - 80.9 19.9

Carrizo North 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 59.1 - - - 59.1 17.3

Carrizo South 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 73.1 - - - 73.1 21.8

Cuyama 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 91.5 - - - 91.5 28.2

Distributed Solar PV - - - - - - - 2.0 78.8 - -

Fairmont 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 55.8 - - - 55.8 9.1

Imperial-East 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 61.7 - - - 61.7 42.9

Imperial-North (A) 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.5 2.6 61.4 - - - 61.4 20.1

Imperial-North (B) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 66.4 - - - 66.4 21.3

Imperial-South 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.5 61.3 - - - 61.3 11.6

Inyokern 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 68.2 - - - 68.2 28.5

Iron Mountain 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 61.8 - - - 61.8 26.0

Kramer 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.2 69.4 - - - 69.4 32.2

Lassen North 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 48.8 - - - 48.8 16.0

Lassen South 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 104.5 - - - 104.5 23.1

Mountain Pass 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 65.3 - - - 65.3 76.0

Nevada C 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 92.9 - - - 72.9 38.4

Nevada N 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 98.8 - - - 72.9 38.4

NonCREZ 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 66.4 - - - 66.4 21.3

Out-of-State 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 66.4 - - - 66.4 21.3

Owens Valley 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 82.9 - - - 82.9 27.1

Palm Springs 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 105.6 - - - 105.6 8.1

Pisgah 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 41.9 - - - 41.9 16.8

Riverside East 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 46.8 - - - 46.8 15.3

Round Mountain-A 6.1 6.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 142.6 - - - 142.6 46.7

Round Mountain-B 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 69.6 - - - 69.6 24.1

San Bernardino - Baker 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 81.0 - - - 81.0 24.0

San Bernardino - Lucerne 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 93.1 - - - 93.1 22.1

San Diego North Central 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 85.6 - - - 85.6 35.6

San Diego South 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 70.6 - - - 70.6 11.0

Santa Barbara 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 53.2 - - - 53.2 16.4

Solano 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 78.8 - - - 78.8 9.4

Tehachapi 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 48.8 - - - 48.8 10.6

Twentynine Palms 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 55.8 - - - 55.8 18.8

Victorville 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 55.6 - - - 55.6 30.6

Westlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 - - - 1.0 0.3

Commercial and Timing Scores

• Commercial Score: Scale of 0-100 reflecting contracting activity of California utilities– Commercial projects receive a score of 0, while generic projects receive

a score of 100

– POU-planned projects considered “Commercial” and receive score of 0

• Timing Score: Gives better score to resources that can be developed on a relatively short time scale– Online date < 2010 gets 0, > 2021 gets 100

– For ED database projects with contracts filed at Commission, dates based on expected Commercial Online Date in contract; if date has passed, assigned 2014

– For other resources, dates based on size and type of project

18

Selection of RPS Portfolio

• Each transmission bundle is assigned an aggregate score based on an average of the constituent resources and compared against individual non-CREZ and RECs resources

• Discounted Core Projects are selected first unless in New Transmission bundle

• After Discounted Core, resources & bundles with the lowest score are selected to fill the 2020 RPS gap

19

20

Scenario Score Weightings

20

ScenarioCost

WeightCommercial

WeightEnvironmental

WeightTimingWeight

Trajectory 20% 60% 20% 0%

Cost-Constrained 100% 0% 0% 0%

Environmentally-Constrained

0% 0% 100% 0%

Time-Constrained 0% 0% 5% 95%

21




• Updated results

• Introduction to Model– Control Panel– Results– Selected_byYear and DeliveredandNQC_byYear– Inputs – where they are and how to adjust– TxInputs– Output Module


Agenda

22

Significant Changes since June Draft

• Three additional scenarios: Trajectory Low and High Load; 20% RPS by 2020 Trajectory

• New net short calculation to reflect levels of EE, CHP, customer-side DG adopted in Scoping Memo

• Resource and cost assumptions:

• Updated NQC values for small generators, biomass, wind, geothermal

• Reduced biomass potential in NW and CA

• Added NOx Permit Costs for relevant biomass resources.

• Fixed discrepancies in modeled amounts of small solar potential

• Fixed pro forma to calculate CA averages rather than U.S. averages

• Updated average cost of transmission line upgrades in CA to reflect new line costs in the model.

23

Significant Changes since June Draft (cont’d)

• Local RPS builds now based on cost only, rather than criteria used to sort in California

• Model capabilities:

• Addition of switch between thin-film and conventional tracking PV as default for utility scale solar installations

• Inclusion of Solar Pro Forma costing tool – recognizes financing differences between solar and non-solar resources

• Added DC line configurations to Wyoming and Montana

• Timing assumptions updated to generally reflect longer development timeframes; 18 month lag added between transmission completion and generation availability

• Environmentally scoring significantly revised: additional RETI criteria re-instated, and land use more directly considered

Known Issues with Model

• Model does not account for all “committed” transmission capacity – Sunrise is not assumed to be filled in all cases

• Model does not correctly consider renewable resource degradation– Model does not select enough resources to meet 33% in 2020– Assigns too much NQC value to renewables

• Pro forma models for solar PV and other renewables are not consistent– State tax assumptions, financing, ITC, debt tenor– Undue cost advantage (~10%) for PV relative to other resources

24

25




• Updated results



Agenda

33% Trajectory

33% Environ-mentally-

Constrained

33%Cost-

Constrained

33%Time-

ConstrainedWyoming 96 4 461 461 New Mexico 32 78 947 947 Round Mountain 78 100 100 100 Palm Springs 77 178 178 178 San Bernardino - Lucerne 49 140 261 261 Kramer 62 62 62 62 Distributed Solar - SDGE 52 397 52 127 British Columbia 2 52 50 52 Remote DG (Brownfield) - SDGE - 78 - 4 Remote DG (Brownfield) - PG&E - 1,842 - 100 Remote DG (Brownfield) - SCE - 564 - 31 Distributed Solar - Other - 1,522 - 344 Westlands - 800 - -Remote DG (Brownfield) - Other - 571 - 31 Fairmont - - - -

Total In-State 14,173 17,711 10,696 11,228Total Out-of-State 5,093 2,818 6,798 8,574

Total 19,266 20,530 17,493 19,802

Resources Selected by Scenario(MW)

33% Trajectory

33% Environ-mentally-

Constrained

33%Cost-

Constrained

33%Time-

ConstrainedTehachapi 4,445 3,491 3,491 4,150 Imperial 1,202 347 1,125 -Northwest 2,359 838 2,359 2,359 Pisgah 1,775 275 275 275 NonCREZ 1,074 599 1,211 1,080 Solano 1,129 300 300 Riverside East 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,500 Alberta 886 450 450 886 Mountain Pass 888 - - -Carrizo South 900 900 900 900 Utah-Southern Idaho 258 258 258 258 San Diego South 400 400 699 400 Colorado 420 - 600 1,371 Nevada C 450 549 500 549 Distributed Solar - PG&E 500 1,757 500 790 Montana 300 300 300 300 Distributed Solar - SCE 500 2,345 500 895 Arizona 290 290 872 1,390

Resources Selected by Scenario(MW)

26

In-State

Out-of-State

In-State

Out-of-State

In-State

Out-of-State

In-State

Out-of-State

Biogas 178 - 178 66 168 73 172 73Biomass 126 34 404 156 291 129 212 103Geothermal 667 154 240 270 797 202 - 158Hydro - 16 - 132 - 14 - 223Large Scale Solar PV 3,527 340 2,315 340 1,549 340 2,543 340Small Solar PV 1,052 - 9,077 - 1,052 - 2,322 -Solar Thermal 3,589 400 1,072 400 1,279 400 1,084 400Wind 5,034 4,149 4,426 1,454 5,559 5,639 4,895 7,276Total 14,173 5,093 17,711 2,818 10,696 6,798 11,228 8,574

Scenario Composition by Technology and Location(MW)

33%Trajectory

33% Environmentally-

Constrained33%

Cost-Constrained

33%Time-

Constrained

Discounted Core

Commercial Non-Core Generic Total

33% Trajectory 9,013 9,192 1,061 19,26633% Environmentally-Constrained 8,109 1,991 10,429 20,53033% Cost-Constrained 8,378 3,864 5,251 17,49333% Time-Constrained 7,951 4,747 7,104 19,802

Scenario

Scenario Composition byGeneration Project Status

(MW)

27

Accomodated on Existing

SystemMinor

Upgrades New Lines

Out-of-State Undelivered

RECs Total33% Trajectory 8,517 2,362 3,295 5,093 19,26633% Environmentally-Constrained 15,327 2,384 - 2,818 20,53033% Cost-Constrained 8,034 2,661 - 6,798 17,49333% Time-Constrained 10,291 937 - 8,574 19,802

Scenario Composition by Transmission Delivery Type

(MW)

Scenario

CostEnvironmental

ConcernCommercial

Interest Timing33% Trajectory 20.3 29.2 6.3 50.733% Environmentally-Constrained 28.6 14.3 47.9 53.033% Cost-Constrained 15.4 20.9 37.8 47.533% Time-Constrained 19.0 23.2 36.9 42.3

Scenario

Scenario Score, by Ranking Metric

28

RPS Net ShortDiscounted Core

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Ran

kin

g S

core

Cumulative TWh

Biogas Biomass Bundled Transmission Geothermal

Small Hydro Incremental Upgrade Large Scale Solar PV Small Solar PV

Solar Thermal Wind


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Ran

kin

g S

core

Cumulative TWh



Solar Thermal Wind

Environmentally-Constrained

Scenario

TrajectoryScenario

29

Time-ConstrainedScenario

Cost-ConstrainedScenario


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Ran

kin

g S

core

Cumulative TWh



Solar Thermal Wind


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Ran

kin

g S

core

Cumulative TWh



Solar Thermal Wind

30

31




• Updated results



Agenda

32

Model Schematic

a – Control Panel

b - Controls

c – Financing Inputs

d – General Inputs

a – ProForma

a – ProFormaCalc

a – ProFormaCalcPV

z - Results

u – SupplyCurve_byBundle

v – SelectedAllResources

w – SelectedCommProj

x – SelectedDiscCore

y – Selected_byYear

y – DeliveredAndNQC_byYear

s – BundleBuildup_NoTx

t – BundleSupplySortCalcs

i – CommProjData

j – GenericProjData

f – RPSNetShortCalc

e – LoadsAndResources

h – EnviroScores

g – TxInputs

zz – Cost Impacts

Input Data and Parameters

Resource Sorts

Results

Resource Sorts

l – GenericProjRanks

k – CommProjRanks

All eligible resources

Remaining for CA



Remaining for New Tx

Remaining for New Tx

q – SupplySortCalcs p – BundleBuildup_TxLines

Remaining Non-REC Resources

All Remaining Resources

REC Resources

Delivered over Existing Tx

r – SupplyCurve_byProject

Minor Upgrades

New Tx

Model Flow

34




• Updated results



Agenda

35

Staff contact on RPS inputs to the Long-Term Procurement Plan:

Anne MillsEnergy Division, [email protected]

LTPP website:http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm

Contact Information

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm

Documents

2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan 33% RPS Calculator Training California Public Utilities Commission January 7, 2011