PDWG_Draft_2030 WorkPlan - WECC€¦ · Web viewData Data Updates in the 2028 ADS PCM Dataset Data Updates for the 2030 PCM Dataset [Type here] J. Austin“Draft” PDWG Work Plan

[Type here]

Production Cost Model (PCM) Data Work Group

(PDWG)2019-20 Work Plan

DRAFTVersion 1.00 – August 4, 2019

Revision History

Version Date Author

1.00 8/4/2019 J. Austin

J. Austin “Draft” PDWG Work Plan 2019-2020 August 4, 2019

[Type here]

Table of Contents

Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................4

Overview...................................................................................................................................................5

Round Trip................................................................................................................................................6

Primary Responsibilities of the PDWG:............................................................................................7

Scope of Work.........................................................................................................................................8

Transmission........................................................................................................................................9

Topology..............................................................................................................................................9

Path Ratings.........................................................................................................................................9

Incremental Transmission....................................................................................................................9

Transmission Wheeling Rates...................................................................................................................10

Coincident Energy Shapes Year.................................................................................................................11

Hydro Data................................................................................................................................................11

WECC L&R – Loads (March 30, 2018)........................................................................................................11

1. Loads (BAA - Monthly peak and energy) + FERC-714 hourly shapes..............................................11

2. Native Loads (conforming), medium loads, 1 in 2 year..................................................................11

Energy Efficiency.......................................................................................................................................12

Demand Resources...................................................................................................................................12

Distributed Generation.............................................................................................................................12

Updating Thermal Plant Data...................................................................................................................13

1. Startup Costs.................................................................................................................................13

2. Up\ Down Time..............................................................................................................................13

4. Plant Outage Rates........................................................................................................................14

5. Plant Heat Rate Curves..................................................................................................................15

6. Pmin/Pmax....................................................................................................................................15

7. Station Service...............................................................................................................................15

Fuel Prices Update....................................................................................................................................16

1. Natural Gas Prices..........................................................................................................................16

2. Coal Prices.....................................................................................................................................16

3. Uranium and other fuel prices.......................................................................................................16

Deflator \ Inflator Rates............................................................................................................................16

Review Wind and Solar Shapes................................................................................................................17

Update Emission Prices CO2.....................................................................................................................17


[Type here]

Other Prices..............................................................................................................................................18

1. The “variable O&M price” for transmission- and distribution-connected solar PV.......................18

2. The “variable O&M price” for wind resources...............................................................................18

3. The start-up costs and start-up times for geothermal resources...................................................18

4. The “variable O&M price” for geothermal resources....................................................................18

Validation of the ADS 2030 PCM Case Data and Parameters. Partner with the Regions to review:......18


[Type here]

PurposeConsistent with the WECC Board of Directors approval of the Anchor Data Set (ADS) proposal in 2016, the ADS was established to use consistent processes and protocols for gathering and utilizing planning data. This data, including reviews for consistency and completeness, is used to generate production costs, power flows, and dynamic models with a common representation of the loads, resources, and transmission across the Western Interconnection 10 years in the future. Ultimately, the ADS is defined as a single, coordinated data source to be developed from planning data with added topology covering Western Regional Planning Groups (RPGs) Transmission System Plans (TSPs).

Using consistent data for building the power flow (PF) and production cost model (PCM) utilizes only the fixed data depicting the power system, including network generators, other system elements and the transmission topology, the static view modeled in the PF representing a single hour dispatch. Although, the PCM starts with the PF for the network definition, it also represents the hourly dispatch, typically for a year. To create the hourly dispatch, for the Western Interconnect, hourly energy data and variable O&M costs are needed to enable the Security Constraint Economic Dispatch; however, such data is deemed confidential and been referenced to as “other data”.

1. The Anchor Data Set (ADS), designed to promote consistency among the data used in reliability assessment models (production cost model and power flow/stability models) used by WECC and its stakeholders. This aspect of the data covers network topology, classification by the Federal Energy Regularity Commission (FERC) as Critical Electrical Infrastructure information (CEII), covering the critical electric infrastructure.

2. The ADS “other data” posted by WECC in public domain is developed by the production cost model working group (PDWG). PDWG develops proxy data, using data from public sources, that replaces unattainable, sensitive and confidential data, covering the following:

a. heat rate curves, plant ramp rates (up and down)b. startup costsc. Forced Outage Rates (FOR)d. planned maintenance periodse. forecast fuel pricesf. hourly shapes for energy efficiency (EE) programsg. distributed generation (DG)h. wind resourcesi. solar resourcesj. run-of-river hydro resources,k. etc.

Entities that have some of this data may consider the data to be commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential.

This Work Plan is intended to provide more details on how and what will be covered by PDWG for building the 2030 ADS PCM dataset.


[Type here]

OverviewPDWG is one of the three organized working groups of the Data Subcommittee (DS), under the Reliability Assessment Committee (RAC). PDWG is responsible for (i) the development of PCM data not otherwise originating with the power flow data development process, and (ii) verification of PCM data. This data is intended to be used to support reliability assessments, the Anchor Data Set (ADS) and other production cost models as needed by WECC stakeholders.

PDWG was instrumental in developing the first issue of the 2028 ADS PCM dataset; the final issue was posted by WECC in June 30, 2019.

Starting from the WECC 2028HS1 PF case, PDWG developed other data to create the hourly dispatch from publicly available data sources. This information was collected by WECC, WECC committees and task forces, as well as by stakeholders, and members of PDWG. PDWG is taking on these responsibilities under the RAC DS auspices.

The PCM database describes information used to model the dispatch of an interconnected Bulk Electric System, such as the Western Interconnection. Studies based on the PCM database use generator locations, load allocation across buses, transmission topology information, among other things, from the interconnected network power flow case. This modeling information describes how the hardware in the system behaves given certain system circumstances.

Power flow loads just cover a single instant-in-time, one hour (e.g., a typically, non-coincident summer peak hour). PDWG, uses monthly peak and energy load forecasts provided in the L&R submittals to WECC, in combination with hourly load profiles from FERC 714 data, to develop 8760-hour load forecasts for the different Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) modeled in the PCM. Area loads are distributed to the bus level through the use of distribution load factors in the ADS reference power flow case. The PDWG will validate the area hourly forecast to identify and address any anomalies. This is one example of how PDWG “develops” data that will be used in the PCM hourly dispatch.

A PCM simulation produces economic dispatch information. The economic dispatch is designed to serve all modeled loads through the dispatch of generation based on variable operating costs and is subject to generator operating parameters and transmission system constraints. Accordingly, the PCM must include transmission system parameters (impedances and facility ratings), load forecasts, fuel prices, and generator operating parameters.

PDWG members, with the help of stakeholders and subject matter experts, develop “proxies” for data that is unattainable, sensitive or confidential. Such data, includes heat rate curves, plant ramp rates (up and down), minimum up- and down-times, start-up times, startup costs, Forced Outage Rates (FOR) and planned maintenance periods. In addition, PDWG develops forecast fuel prices, hourly shapes for energy efficiency (EE) programs, additional achievable energy efficiency (AAEE), non-dispatchable distributed generation (DG), wind resources, solar resources, run-of-river hydro resources, and other non-dispatchable resources. The RAC, with support from its subcommittees and working groups, oversees the relevant ADS processes that involve stakeholder input and creation of the ADS-related year-10 PF and PCM datasets.


[Type here]

The ADS is also intended to reflect RPGs TSPs and applicable state and federal statutory public policy requirements such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Regional Haze Programs, and Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and any greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission constraints. The ADS also creates a common representation of the loads, resources, and transmission topology. Two key controversies surrounds these data:

1. RPGs Transmission System Plans are not necessarily incorporated in WECC power flow cases compiled from data submitted by Data Submitters. The reason for this is that not all four RPGs operate under consistent rules; Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) outside of CAISO do not necessarily coordinate their local transmission planning consistent with the regional plans.

2. Data developed for inclusion in the ADS may be transmitted to WECC via BAAs, Transmission Providers (TPs), and/or Planning Coordinators (PCs) pursuant to (but not limited to) these organizations’ responsibilities to satisfy the applicable NERC MOD-031 and MOD-032 reliability planning standards. Some Data Submitters believe only existing and approved resources should be included, leading to a deficient dataset lacking full coverage of planned resources for state and federal statutory public policy requirements such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Regional Haze Programs, Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and any greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission constraints. The reasoning for excluding this information is typically given as follows:

a. Unable to include planned generation for which location and technology are not known with certainty

b. Concerns that reliability could be jeopardized if Base Cases include these generators

c. Studies performed with these uncertain generators may not identify potential reliability risks

d. If the generators are not built the risks would not be adequately addressed.

Round TripThe method for uploading transmission topology, generator location data, bus-level load distributions, and other data ultimately necessary to export an hour from the ADS PCM for purposes of creating an ADS power flow/stability case, requires using the “round trip” process (integral to building the ADS). This entails developing and ensuring interoperability of the network elements between the power flow “seed case” and the starting point PCM case. The “ADS 2030” database will be initiated using the ADS 2028 Seed Cases (power flow and PCM) that allows for capturing the regional planning groups’ transmission plans and generator mapping/name matching.

Since organizations (e.g., the regional planning groups) may have different study years and different forecasts, the following should be used to guide development of the datasets:

Data should be collected in modular blocks reflecting different assumptions to meet different needs

The databases must provide an accurate representation of the existing grid


[Type here]

Accurate data is critical to model validation and development of model parameters Backcast capability should be supported It should be easy to determine what changes to the existing grid were made to arrive at

any future view The production cost model simulates the system across all hours of a year. The status of equipment and settings in the PCM may be different from the imported power flow case, but the PCM must have the same topology as the power flow “seed case”.

The ADS process calls for fundamental change and closer coordination among the regional planning groups and their respective WECC Data Submitters. Major benefits to cooperative development include:

Regional planning groups to support data development (e.g., resource mapping/name matching)

Regional planning groups to provide feedback on their respective systems (e.g., topology and related data, review L&R balance, imports\exports, etc.)

Regional planning groups to provide feedback on dispatch (e.g., plant performance, path flows, etc.)

Primary Responsibilities of the PDWG: For data not originating from the power flow process, collect and verify the existing

infrastructure information, supplemental to the SDWG collection process, for

o Generators

Incremental additions: technology definition, working with the regional planning groups on generator mapping/name matching information

Plant retirements; latest information from State Government Agencies, National Labs, Regions, etc.

Develop data that constitutes the hourly dispatch:

o Generator operating parameters, unit commitment information (e.g., Pmax, Pmin, ramp rates, startup costs, etc.)

o Transmission operating parameters - Nomogram definitions, Path Ratings

o Loads, detailed information on elements typically netted from Loads: EE, DG, Small Hydro, Pumps, SS, etc.

Develop forward-looking information on

o Fuel price assumptions

o Emissions prices

o Wheeling costs

Develop energy data and assumptions (e.g., deciding on the coincident year for energy profiles)


[Type here]

o Load profiles (based on WECC member reporting, regions reporting)

o RPS Resources (e.g., wind and solar hourly profiles)

o DER, EE &DSM hourly profiles

Assist in the validation process of newly created ADS case studies.

Maintain and improve “round trip” capabilities between the power flow base case and PCM.

In addition to supporting development of the PCM components of the ADS, the PDWG will coordinate with other RAC committees as follows:

1. Collaborate on developing the data needed to support the Studies Subcommittee (StS’s) annual study program (e.g., develop other than average conditions data that constitutes the ADS dataset). PDWG will "actively coordinate with the Studies Subcommittee and Scenario Development Subcommittee to assist with the development of studies and scenarios".

2. Collaborate with other RAC work groups to ensure that WECC collects the data necessary to support the production cost model.

a. Develop processes to combine the data of the Interconnection-wide case created by the SDWG and the production cost data developed by PDWG, and to support development of the ADS.

b. Coordinate with other WECC Committees to develop consistent assumptions that lead to consistent data:

i. Ensure interchangeability of data between the power flow and PCM databases

ii. Ensure that there is consistent data representation in both power flow and PCM software programs.

c. Provide a forum for discussing issues related to PCM data collection.

Scope of WorkPDWG works closely with other RAC work groups in study case preparation and analysis. The Matrix below defines the scope of work for the PDWG that covers building the 2028 ADS PCM Dataset. This Matrix was presented at the ADSTF meeting held Nov 1-2, 2017 and was posted for review and comments.


Data Data Updates in the 2028 ADS PCM Dataset

Data Updates for the 2030 PCM Dataset

Data SDWG PDWG

Transmission TopologyPath RatingsIncremental Transmission

Used the WECC 2028 HS1 PF Start with the WECC 2030 hs1 power flow case. Map resources consistent with resources in the one hour PF export from 2028 ADS PCM

Add RPGs Transmission Plans

Validate Path definitions & Ratings in PCM




Transmission Wheeling RatesDS approved as was proposed. February 7, 2018

Wheeling Rates” cover utility tariffs, the cost of transporting power over transmission lines.

1. Applied “export wheeling charge” to every BA with the following exceptions:

2. Trading hubs are free of export wheeling charges

3. Firm transmission rights are free of pancaked charges along the way. If there is firm transmission right, wheeling charges are “exempted”.

4. No wheeling charge for remote generators; all remote generators have firm transmission rights or associated transmission.

5. “Contract paths”6. “Path-based free-wheeling”7. If the associated contracts are

unknown, apply wheel to flows in exceedance of 90%.

The ADS regions are defined at an operational level, and in most cases those definitions correspond to the balancing authority (“BA”) boundaries. At the balancing authority level, some of the distributed load centers or Load Serving Entities (LSE) are consolidated to model the operational aspects associated with a BA, such as wheeling tariffs and reserve requirements. Wheeling rates or tariff rates are associated with the cost to deliver energy over transmission.

Typically wheeling rates apply to the non-firm power transfers as firm transfers are considered to be sunk costs. The objective is to update wheeling rates for the 2030 ADS PCM dataset.

Modeling full ratesWheeling rates should be used to cover non-firm transactions, whereas, previously in the TEPPC database they were applied as flat rates on all transfers resulting in double-dipping. Firm transactions are associated with rights that have sunk costs and should not be charged wheeling rates.

Most WECC paths are fully committed; the non-firm piece constitutes a small percentage of total flows on the transmission, about 10%.

Jin - ABB, recommended previously to use a graduated schedule when the flows reach an agreed to % of total, then apply the wheel (e.g., apply a wheel rate when the flow exceed at 90% of line\path capacity.




Coincident Energy Shapes Year

The 2028 ADS PCM used year 2009 for the coincident Energy Shapes

November 30, 2017 1. Preliminary discussions favored continuing to use year 2009 shapes

2. Less work involved

3. Need to revisit latest work on Hydro-temperature; wind-temperature coloration

Hydro DataHydro data was developed using 2009 shapes, however, supplemented with 2008 (Jun-Aug) shapes for Core Columbia projects

DS approved as described, November 30, 2017

1. Preliminary discussions favored continuing to use year 2009

2. Less work involved

3. Need to revisit latest work on Hydro-temperature; wind-temperature coloration

WECC L&R – Loads (March 30, 2018)1. Loads (BAA - Monthly

peak and energy) + FERC-714 hourly shapes

2. Native Loads (conforming), medium loads, 1 in 2 year

1. Started with using the L&R loads submitted in March 2017, except for California; used the California Energy Commission (CEC)’s “preliminary” 2018-2028 forecast.

2. The 2028 ADS PCM loads were modified to reflect the WECC L&R loads, submitted in March, 2018 to reflect the same vintage load forecast for the entire Western Interconnect


1. Update consistent with March 2020 L&R submittal




Energy EfficiencyRecent surveying of EE programs by LBNL led to the discovery that all but one LSE nets EE from their loads; IPC develops their load forecast through an econometric regression that implicitly captures some future energy efficiency program activity, but not all of it.


1. Update consistent with March 2020 L&R submittal

Demand ResourcesContinue to use the latest DR values for “place holder” that were submitted for the Common Case, Summer 2017.


1. 1. Update consistent with March 2020 L&R submittal

Distributed GenerationDG is also referenced as behind the meter PV (BTM PV) – mostly large-scale photovoltaic generation that is connected behind an end-user load meter. For California, use behind-the-load meter generation assumptions developed by the CEC in their new 2018-2028 Load forecast.

For other states model programs that reflect current policies and utility plans (RPS, DG, EE, etc.)


1. Update consistent with CEC Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR 2020) assumptions




Updating Thermal Plant Data

1. Startup Costs

Continued to use Intertek-APTECH estimates for plant startup costs, escalated, using the CEC deflator series

DS approved as described, February 7, 2018

It’s been a long time since the Intertek-APTECK study…need to review potential other sources for confirmation.

2. Up\ Down Time Adjusted APTEK engineering recommended “Outage Duration” and/or “Min Down” such that “Outage Duration” is greater than or equal to “Min Down”

Coal plant outage duration was adjusted to 48 hours from 38 hours.



3. Plant Ramp Rate Updated the ramp rates using CAISO methodology (used in ISO LTPP Study) that involved using confidential bid data, however, aggregated to avoid confidentiality problems. It is assumed that units outside CAISO are consistent for similar technology units in CAISO.






4. Plant Outage Rates Used CEMS data to calculate FOR & Maintenance Rates for coal-fired plants in the 2028 ADS PCM dataset. The CEMS method allows for using unit-specific plant FOR and Scheduled Maintenance Durations from publically-available data.

1. For coal-fired plants use values developed by ATC , as described under “Analysis”, that have been calculated using 14 years of hourly CEMS data (2002-2015) and are now available for implementation.

2. For gas-fired plants continued using Generator Availability Data System (GADS) data.


1. Update with GADS latest data.

5. Plant Heat Rate Curves Continued use of heat rate curves developed in 2016, by the CEC, using an algorithm approved by the PDWG.

Used CEMS hourly data from years 2010 – 2014, scrubbed based on assumptions determined by the PDWG Task Force.


Consult with CEC about the need to use more recent CEMS data. There has been definite change in thermal usage since 2010 – 2014.







6. Pmin/Pmax With consideration of “Round Trip”, the use of Pmin\Pmax values are as follows:

Power flow export hour -- use values from the reference power flow case

PCM – Pmin/Pmax should not exceed values in reference power flow case”


Modify to line up with power flow.

7. Station Service For Short term solution, PDWG recommended used:

PCM: SS values = 0

Round-trip: export hour, use SS values from the reference power flow case. This will require post processing, using a spread sheet.


Modify to line up with power flow.

Fuel Prices Update1. Natural Gas Prices

Natural Gas Prices – developed using the CEC annual burner tip prices and the Northwest Power Conservation Council’s (NPC) monthly shapes.

Other fuel Prices – Annual Energy Outlook 2017 forecast, reviewed and discussed by PDWG on January 16, 2018”


Update with more current fuel data.




2. Coal Prices Use start fuel for coal as defined in EIA 860

Coal prices – developed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) reviewed and discussed by PDWG on January 16, 2018



3. Uranium and other fuel prices

Other fuel Prices – Annual Energy Outlook 2017 forecast, reviewed and discussed by PDWG on January 16, 2018”



Deflator \ Inflator RatesUsed CEC Deflator Series IEPR 2017, based on GDP deflator series, developed using Moody Analytics data


Update using the CEC latest Deflator Series.

Review Wind and Solar Shapes

PDWG developed plant specific hourly shapes using the NREL synthetic wind data for year 2009, with the caveat of correcting wind shapes for wind profiles with CF > 50%.”


Continue to use shapes from year 2009.

Update Emission Prices CO2Implemented $44.30/metric ton CO2 (2018 dollars) for California supply, in the 2028 ADS PCM dataset:






1. This is the mid-range price for CO2, developed by the California Energy Commission for IEPR 2017, for year 2028.

2. This results in unspecified import CO2 fee to California of $18.96/MWh, as specified in arb




Other Prices1. The “variable O&M

price” for transmission- and distribution-connected solar PV.

2. The “variable O&M price” for wind resources.

3. The start-up costs and start-up times for geothermal resources.

4. The “variable O&M price” for geothermal resources.

Initial assumptions in the 2028 ADS PCM were the following, however modified as hydro outside of CA was cycling for because of the negative pricing below:

Tier 1) -$25/MWh curtailment (GV uses dispatch cost for curtailment cost) price for grid connected renewable variable resources wind and solar.

Tier 2) -$45/MWh curtailment\dispatch cost for Federal Columbia River Power System hydro projects that cannot be curtailed.

Note:

Behind the Meter PV is not curtailable.

Variable operations and maintenance costs for wind and solar are assumed to be zero.”


Revisit current assumptions in the 2028 dataset.

Validation of the ADS 2030 PCM Case Data and Parameters. Partner with the Regions to review:

Validation is required.





Documents

PDWG_Draft_2030 WorkPlan - WECC€¦ · Web viewData Data Updates in the 2028 ADS PCM Dataset Data Updates for the 2030 PCM Dataset [Type here] J. Austin“Draft” PDWG Work Plan