WECC 2019 Scenario Assess Draft Rpt v0.1_GH RM ... 2019 Scen… · Web viewMay want to add something here about the difficulty in modeling behind the meter resources and potential

WECC 2019 Scenario Assess Draft Rpt v0.1_GH RMcombined comments

WECC Staff12/31/2019

1

Executive SummaryThis report presents the results and analysis of potential risks to the reliability of the Western Interconnection (WI) associated with potential futures as described by WECC 2038 Scenarios developed by the WECC Scenario Development Subcommittee (SDS) and, as the name suggests, focuses on a 20-year study horizon.

The creation of the WECC 2038 Scenarios was a collaborative effort between WECC and its stakeholders to imagine plausible energy futures and the drivers that shape them. The crafting of the scenarios began with a focus question developed by WECC and its stakeholder. Namely:

How might customer demand for electric services in the Western Interconnection evolve as new technologies and policies create more market options, and with that, what risks and opportunities may emerge for the power industry in sustaining electric reliability?

Through the scenario development process, a scenario matrix upon which four scenarios were created around the themes of Customer Adoption of New Energy Service Options and The Direction of State/Provincial Energy Policy versus Market Driven Forces.

Load and generation profiles for the studies were derived from the WECC Anchor Dataset (2028 ADS P2v2.0) and data provided by NREL as part of the NREL Electrification Futures Study1.

Notable observations include:

Resource retirements between 2028 and 2038, as modeled in the 2028 ADS P2v2.0, amount to 104,000 MW of installed capacity that could be lost to the grid

1

Mai, Trieu, Paige Jadun, Jeffrey Logan, Colin McMillan, Matteo Muratori, Daniel Steinberg, Laura Vimmerstedt, Ryan Jones, Benjamin Haley, and Brent Nelson. 2018. Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption for the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-71500. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf Cole, Wesley, Nathaniel Gates, Trieu Mai, Daniel Greer, and Paritosh Das. 2019. 2019 Standard Scenarios Report: A U.S. Electricity Sector Outlook. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-TP-6A20-74110. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74110.pdf. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2019. 2019 Annual Technology Baseline. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2019 Mai, Trieu, Paige Jadun, Jeffrey Logan, Colin McMillan, Matteo Muratori, Daniel Steinberg, Laura Vimmerstedt, Ryan Jones, Benjamin Haley, and Brent Nelson. 2018. Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption for the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-71500. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf. Cole, Wesley, Nathaniel Gates, Trieu Mai, Daniel Greer, and Paritosh Das. 2019. 2019 Standard Scenarios Report: A U.S. Electricity Sector Outlook. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-TP-6A20-74110. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74110.pdf.

2

Leo Richard Marrs, 01/04/20,

Is this an observation of the 10 year ADS, or the 10 year ads and the 2038 Ref Case?

Owner, 01/04/20,

From where are these observations derived? From a 10 year model run using the Anchor Data Set. This seems unclear with such important results. Needs more explanation here.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74110.pdf


https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2019



https://www.wecc.org/SystemStabilityPlanning/Pages/AnchorDataSet.aspx?utm_source=PopularSearches


and could result in significant levels of unserved energy amounting to as much as 16,000 GWh annually.

With increased electrification, the peaks and valleys of diurnal load profiles become “spikier,” leading to operational challenges and increased risks to system reliability during peak and ramping periods.

Flexible Distributed Energy Resources (DER) from electric vehicle battery storage (DER-EV) and battery storage in general has the potential of being very effective in smoothing the spikiness of diurnal electrification load profiles.

Pricing points for flexible DER at or above average monthly marginal prices for energy appear to be most effective in smoothing the spikiness of diurnal electrification load profiles.

The biggest influence of policy drivers on the study results was that of a $55/ton CO2 cost which led to all coal fired generation being displaced.

The amount of clean energy technologies in the overall resource portfolio mix remained constant across all scenarios at between 65% and 70%. All available renewable generation within the NREL generation portfolio, which was used in the scenario analyses. was committed in the results.

While the amount of natural gas generation in the resource portfolio mix increased as load increased, its shares of the overall resource portfolio mix ranged between 30% and 35%. the assessment showed that a heavy dependence on natural gas-fired generation is required with coal displacements and increased spikiness of diurnal load shapes.

With increased concentration of renewable price-taking resources, average Locational Marginal Prices (LMP) dropped to below $30/MWh in all cases with the exception of Scenario 2 where load was higher and congestion was observed in the Basin and Rocky Mountain regions.

Transmission path utilizations increased substantially in the Basin region of the Western Interconnection (WI).

There is a need for market mechanisms to evolve as electrification and customer adoption increase in terms including rates, pricing, time-of-use (TOU), and technology advancement.

Better tools, methods, and data are needed to effectively model DER. Development of load and generation scenario ensembles to augment WECC’s study

capabilities would be beneficial. Examples are high renewable and storage resource ensembles and more refined end-use load models.

3


This is critical for undertsnading S2 and S4

Owner, 01/04/20,

Is this to allow more analsysis of conditions likely to occur in Scenario 2?


This is the second biggest missing next to clean energy – both S2 and S4 antinpipoate much more DER and dispoatchable DER than the NREL generation mid case does

Owner, 01/04/20,

Should this say behind the meter resources as well?

Owner, 01/04/20,

Toward what end? To make it more useful in addressing reliability and serving potential unserved energy?


What NG price was used? How di the $55/ton carbon price affect NG gen, if at all?


Biggest missing in modeling assumptions: This should not be the case as both S2 and S4 imply much more clean energy at utility and customer side, more DER and more storage, S2 more than S4, but mo0re than Ref Case – the generation portfolios in S2 and S4 are lacking this distinction


It is unclear if this had any impact on NG in the scenario runs

Table 1 Acronyms and Definitions

Acronym Definition2028 ADS P2v2.0

2028 Anchor Data Set (Phase 2 version 2.0)

ADS WECC Anchor Data Set

BPS Bulk Power System

BTM Behind the meter

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

DER Distributed Energy Resources are energy producing resources located on the distribution system such as solar PV and battery storage.

DER-EV Distributed Energy Resources represented by high Electric Vehicle (EV) penetration

EFS The NREL Electrification Futures Study

LMP Locational Marginal Price ($/MWh)

NEV No dispatchable DER-EV enabled

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NTC No Transmission Constraints enforced

PCM Production Cost Model

TOU Time-of-Use (related to diurnal energy usage)

WEV With dispatchable DER-EV enabled

WI Western Interconnection

WSTF WECC Scenario Task Force

WTC Transmission Constraints enforced

4


Table of Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................62. Participants......................................................................................................83. Assessment Approach.......................................................................................9

3.1. Assumptions..........................................................................................................103.2. Collaboration with other assessment teams..........................................................143.3. Study Limitations...................................................................................................14

4. Analytical Results...........................................................................................15Reference Case...............................................................................................................15Unserved Load................................................................................................................19Resource Portfolio Mix...................................................................................................22Transmission Paths.........................................................................................................24Economics....................................................................................................................... 28

5. Observations and Conclusions........................................................................296. Recommendations..........................................................................................30

5

1. IntroductionThis assessment investigates and analyzes potential risks to the reliability of the Western Interconnection (WI) associated with each of four potential futures developed by the WECC Scenario Development Subcommittee (SDS). WECC and its stakeholders developed the four future scenarios for the Western Interconnection based on a “focus question” developed during a scenario development workshop held March 27-28, 2018 at WECC’s headquarters offices in Salt Lake City, Utah. The focus question for the WECC 2038 Scenarios is:

How might customer demand for electric services in the Western Interconnection evolve as new technologies and policies create more market options, and with that, what risks and opportunities may emerge for the power industry in sustaining electric reliability?

To expand on this question:

How might customer demand How do we define customers, in what segments or categories? With DER? Grid connected?

for electric services What services beyond commodity supply of electricity? What kinds of enhanced services?

in the Western Interconnection evolve as new technologies

Technology innovation that impacts distributed energy as well as utility scale supply and delivery systems.

and policies Policies at all levels.

create more market options, and with that,

Markets: regulated and unregulated.Options: Power supplies.

what risks and opportunities may emerge for the power industry

Who and what players will be in it?

in sustaining electric reliability? What risks to the reliability of the Bulk Power Systems in the Western Interconnection?What standards and requirements apply?

Since the study horizon for the 2038 Scenarios is long-term (20 years), there is admittedly a great deal of uncertainty as to how the energy future of the Western Interconnection evolves. What can be reasonably stated, however, is that the Western

6

Interconnection has been undergoing transformational change in recent years and this trend will likely continue in the long-term. As such, the goal of this study, using scenario analysis, is not to predict the future, but rather imagine alternative plausible futures given a set of underlying key drivers.

To address the focus question, the SDS agreed on the following key drivers:

1. Changes in State and Provincial electric energy market policies2. Changes in Federal electric energy market policies3. Evolution of customer-side energy supply technology and service options4. Changes in the character and shape of customer demand for electric power5. Changes in utility-scale power supply options 6. Changes in State, Provincial, and Federal electric system regulations for reliability7. Evolution of climate change and environmental issues on electric power service8. Evolution of fuel markets in the electric power sector9. Shifts in the cost of capital and financial markets10.Economic growth within the Western Interconnection11.Worldwide developments in the electric power industry

These drivers were prioritized by consensus of the SDS to create a “scenario matrix,” a tool that facilitates the organization and creation of distinctive scenarios centered about primary themes. The scenario matrix for the 2038 Scenarios is presented in Figure 1 WECC 2038 Scenario Matrix below:

7

Owner, 01/04/20,

The scenario analysis process also allows continuous learning as data analysis can be refined and updated to determine the direction of change caused by variations in key factors (e.g. carbon costs). Scenario analyses can also reveal potentially emerging risks to reliability by pinpointing future changes that might influence the availability of key resources.

Figure 1 WECC 2038 Scenario Matrix

This report bases analyses on a “Reference Case” used to compare assessments of the four scenarios collectively, noting differences between the four potential futures in each section of the assessment report. The Reference Case begins with the 2028 Anchor Data Set (ADS) and extends the assumptions an additional 10 years into 2038. The resulting set of loads, resources and transmission topology serves as a reference point to which the WECC scenarios can then be compared.

2. ParticipantsThe following individuals participated on the WECC Scenarios Task Force (WSTF). Special thanks to Amy Mignella, Bryce Freeman, Thomas Carr, Carl Zichella, Gerald Harris, Peter Mackin, and Richard Marrs for their leadership, contributions, and long-term commitment to the Scenario Development effort at WECC.

Table 2 WECC Scenarios Assessment Participants

Member OrganizationFrank Afranji Northwest Power Pool

8


The Ref Case is not represented in the report well enough to serve as a comparison, especially in the generation stack – the Reference Case should have a section just for itself, with the same level of detail as the other scenarios

Member OrganizationRavi Aggarwal Bonneville Power AssociationJamie Austin PacifiCorpThomas Carr Western Interstate Energy BoardTyler Cooper Black Hills CorporationTaylor Cramer Mitsubishi Electric CorporationBryce Freeman Wyoming Office of Consumer AdvocateTessa Haagenson City of BurbankGerald Harris The Quantum Planning GroupRobyn Kara PacifiCorpYara Khalaf Puget Sound EnergyHarris Lee SRPPeter Mackin GridBright, Inc.Richard Marrs The Quantum Planning GroupAmy Mignella Amy T. Mignella, Esq.Gayle Nansel Western Area Power AdministrationMichael Reynolds SRPApril Spacek Avista CorporationLei Xiong Alberta Electric System OperatorXiaofei (Sophie) Xu Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyJanice Zewe Sacramento Municipal Utility DistrictWenjuan (Wendy) Zhang Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCarl Zichella Natural Resources Defense CouncilJulia Prochnik Natural Resources Defense CouncilKate Maracas Western Grid Group

3. Assessment ApproachA guiding principle of scenario development is to “suspend disbelief.” This principle guides the creation of scenario narratives, as illustrated in Figure 1 WECC 2038 ScenarioMatrix, that allows for the inclusion of perspectives from a diverse representation of WECC stakeholders. Equally important, this principle allows scenario narratives of an imagined future to be developed unencumbered by paradigms regarding the limitations modeling tools. This leads to another important guiding principle of a “risk-based study approach” as opposed to a “tool-based study approach”. Simply put, a “risk-based study approach” is a scoping effort for the creation of a study approach that draws upon a collection of complementary tools, models, methods, data, and expertise to accomplish the desired study results rather than a “tool-based study approach” which is constrained by the limitations of a single tool. While every effort was made to address the scenario

9

narratives imagined, limitations still exist. An effort was made in this report to identify these limitations in the “Study Limitations” section of this report.

3.1. AssumptionsThe modeling assumption that went into this report were vetted through the WECC Scenario Task Force (WSTF). The effort of which was to transform the Scenario narratives into data and models that can be studied. Models and methods chosen were focused on the Scenario Matrix themes. Tools and models used to perform this study included a production cost models, power flows, capital expansion tools, the WECC Anchor Data Set ADS P2v2.0 and data provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as part of their Electrifications Futures Study (EFS).

To evaluate potential reliability risks associated with various futures for the Western Interconnection, it was necessary to define the load profiles that were representative of various levels of customer adoption of new service options. To do so, WECC and the WSTF turned to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The four future scenarios described above in Figure 1 WECC 2038 Scenario Matrix define different loads to be served, based on the drivers defined by the scenario matrix. NREL has defined a series of potential future load profiles, referred to as the Demand-side Scenarios, as part of the Electrifications Futures Study2 (EFS). These demand-side scenarios are based on the rate of future technology advancement and the rate of customers’ adoption of new technologies. Within that range of potential future load profiles, the SDS has identified four that would be expected to correspond closely to the load profiles associated with WECC’s future scenarios. The NREL demand-side scenarios and their correlation with WECC’s future scenarios are shown below in Figure 2 NREL Load Profiles.

Figure 2 NREL Load Profiles

Slow Technology Advancement

Moderate Technology Advancement

Rapid Technology Advancement

Reference Customer Adoption

Reference Adoption, Slow Technology Advancement

Reference Adoption, Moderate Technology Advancement

Reference Adoption, Rapid Technology Advancement

Medium Customer Adoption

Medium Adoption, Slow Technology Advancement

Medium Adoption, Moderate Technology Advancement

Medium Adoption, Rapid Technology Advancement

High Customer Adoption

High Adoption, Slow Technology

High Adoption, Moderate

High Adoption, Rapid Technology

2

10

SC3 SC1

SC4

SC2


We have not seen just what other areas of electrictrification, other than EVs, are included in the data – a big missing – rmember the “other areas”?

Owner, 01/04/20,

This also provides a place for continuous learning as tools get better and related useful datea becomes available.

Advancement Technology Advancement

Advancement

To fully understand potential future reliability risks associated with the four WECC futures, this assessment defined sensitivities around the Reference Case and each of the four Scenario cases:

Case without Transmission Constraints (NTC) and without dispatchable DER-EV (NEV);

Case without Transmission Constraints (NTC) and with dispatchable DER-EV (WEV);

Case with Transmission Constraints (WTC) and without dispatchable DER-EV (NEV); and

Case with Transmission Constraints (WTC) and with dispatchable DER-EV (WEV).

The analyses and figures that follow investigate in detail the implications of these varying sensitivities.

Figure 3 Annual Load for 2038 WECC Scenarios, by State illustrates the load levels by state for each of the four scenarios derived.

Figure 3 Annual Load for 2038 WECC Scenarios, by State

11

Owner, 01/06/20,

Looks like the customer adoption is so strong that it makes S1 and S3 almost identical.


We still need to decide if in fact S1 and S3 should be almost the same, or more distinct based on the scenario intent – I don’t think having two so close serves a useful purpose.

The corresponding Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for the scenario loads is presented in Figure 4 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for 2038 WECC Scenarios, by Stat. As can be seen from these graphs, the load levels for Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 are considerably higher as they represent high customer adoption on the Scenario Matrix.

Figure 4 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for 2038 WECC Scenarios, by State

The EFS demand-side scenarios provided by NREL also included components of flexible load. The load shapes provided by NREL were constructed “bottom-up” using the Energy Pathways tool which included a representation for flexible load. This flexible load represents demand-side flexibility only and consists primarily of transportation load in the form of electric vehicles. This flexible load was modeled for each of the scenarios as an hourly resource so that the flexibility could be dispatched throughout the day subject to Production Cost Model (PCM) price signals and referred to throughout this report as DER-EV. Sensitivity simulations with no DER-EV (NEV) were run for each of the scenarios to determine the monthly average NEV LMPs for each balancing area within the model. These monthly LMP values were then used as the price points for the DER-EV for each scenario. Prior to this approach to defining DER-EV price points, other sensitivities were run with DER-EV at various price points between $0/MWh to $200/MWh. From these sensitivities, it was discovered that the optimal price point could not be defined at a fixed value shared across by all scenarios, but rather by prices at the margin. These average price points ranged between $20/MWh and $50/MWh.

12


What is causing the high load growth in AZ, and BC? Given their populations I would see this as a critical understanding or missing


ISame comment on S1 and S3 as above

NREL developed 36 forward-looking resource portfolios referred to as the Standard Scenarios3. These scenarios are designed to capture a range of possible generation resource portfolio futures considering a variety of factors that may impact these futures. The resource portfolio chosen for this study was the Mid-case which represents a reference portfolio that uses policies that are in place as of July 31, 2019 and include other default assumptions derived from the NREL’s annual technology baseline4. The Mid-case scenario represents a reference case and provides a useful baseline for comparing scenarios and evaluating the trends.

3.2. Collaboration with other assessment teamsThe WECC Scenarios Task Force (WSTF) collaborated with the Significant Electrification Task Force (SETF) to complete this assessment. Like the WSTF, the SETF considered the effects of customer adoption of new technologies, advancement in technology availability and their effects on the bulk power system (BPS). This coincided with the SETF’s electrification projections as customer choice can have a significant impact on future load values and profiles. For the customer adoption axis in the WECC Scenarios, the electrification load assumptions were the same between studies and therefore the SETF and WSTF collaborated to develop load shapes.

3.3. Study LimitationsWhile every effort was made to address the scenario narratives imagined, limitations still exist. Below is a list of study limitations.

Distributed energy resources (DER) were modeled on the supply side and limited to those already modeled in the 2028 Anchor Data Set augmented by dispatchable DER derived from the EFS5 demand-side scenarios, which were primarily comprised of electric vehicles.

The retirement dates for resources modeled within the 2028 ADS P2v2.0 database may need to be revisited, especially those scheduled for retirement between the years 2028 and 2038.

Better metrics need to be developed for life extension of existing generating resources.

Seasonal variations on regional generation and path flows should be studied in more detail.

High renewable and high energy storage portfolio scenarios should be studied in greater detail.

Generation and transmission were not co-optimized together. Capital Expansion analysis was not included in this report given the uncertainty

around resource retirements.

3

4

5

13

Owner, 01/04/20,

WECC may also want to comment on the fact that the local distribution system upgrade costs that might be required to safely and effectively use EV and some forms of DER as resources to meet reliability needs has not been fully analysed. This is important because those costs may make Scenario 2 a “dead letter” and argue for Scenarios 3 and 4.


The future revolves around capital cost for both generation and trans mission, the modeling is only halfway done with out this – that is the key check on plausibility – can it be built in 20 years and for how much?

Owner, 01/04/20,

Should WECC have a role is suggesting what kinds of regional policies might be more helpful in assuring the most efficient and cost effective use of generation and transmission expansion based on these analyses?


We already know that wind resources are being pushed out from 20 year avg. to 30, 35 and in smoes cases 40 years (we did an EPS)

Owner, 01/04/20,

May want to add something here about the difficulty in modeling behind the meter resources and potential consumer behavior in the adoption and use of such resources ( in term of that use on those resources on energy demand and the need for new capacity).


A key missing is limiting DER in the scenarios especially in S2 and S4

Owner, 01/04/20,

May want to have EV assumptions that differ from NREL.

Owner, 01/04/20,

May want to say something about the newness of this approach collaborating with NREL and DOE and its advantages for WECC.


This is a red flag – we should ot assume 2038 policies are the same as they were in 2019

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/electrification-futures.html

4. Analytical Results

Reference CasesReference cases were created in addition to the scenario cases. The reference cases were created by extending the load, generation, and transmission trajectories of the 2028 ADS P2v2.0 another 20 years to 2038.

In the initial PCM simulations, there were significant amounts of unserved load on the order of 16,000 GWh, primarily in British Columbia as illustrated in Figure 5 Unserved Load for 2038 Reference Case WTC NEV.

Figure 5 Unserved Load for 2038 Reference Case WTC NEV

Significant changes in transmission path flows and regional resource generation were also observed in comparison to that of the 2028 ADS P2v2.0, as illustrated in Figure 6 Inter-Regional Flows (GWh) for 2038 Reference Case WTC NEV. In the figures below, the black circle indicates the magnitude of the load while the colored circles indicate the magnitude of the generation with the colors identifying different generation sources. If the colored circle is larger than the black circle, the identified region has a surplus of generation. Similarly, a larger black circle indicates a generation deficit.

Figure 6 Inter-Regional Flows (GWh) for 2038 Reference Case WTC NEV

2028 ADS P2v2.0 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV-WAR

14


Note the huge swings are in BC again – we really need to know what is happening in BC! This was brought up in last WSTF meeting and it supposed to be checked out

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that roughly 104,000 MW of resource retirements are scheduled in the 2028 ADS P2v2 database as illustrated in Figure 7 2028ADS Scheduled Resource Retirements.

15

Owner, 01/04/20,

May want to provide a link here with further detail. Is this nuclear power, gas plants and coal?

Figure 7 2028 ADS Scheduled Resource Retirements

To maintain the portfolio mix of the NREL Mid-Case standard scenario6, the retirement dates for these resources were, extended beyond 2038 in all study cases. The subsequent PCM simulations yielded reasonable results when compared with that of the 2028 ADS P2v2.0, as illustrated in Figure 8 Inter-Regional Flows (GWh) for 2038 Reference Case, With Extended Resource Retirement Dates. It is noted, however, that the retirement dates in the 2028 ADS P2v2.0 should be revisited, although the effort to do so is not trivial and not within the scope of the scenario studies.Figure 8 Inter-Regional Flows (GWh) for 2038 Reference Case, With Extended Resource

Retirement Dates

2028 ADS P2v2.0 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV

6

16

Owner, 01/04/20,

So if those retirements come in earlier than modeled we have a problem?


Not only do we not know the components – my guess is mainly coal – what are the BS, NW, RM and SW abbreviations? AB. BC, and CA are provinces and states, but…?

As Figure 8 Inter-Regional Flows (GWh) for 2038 Reference Case, With Extended Resource Retirement Dates illustrates, with ADS retirements extended beyond 2038, the path flows are more reasonable. The California region remains a net importer with increases in load which are not entirely offset by increases in solar generation and DG/DR/EE/BTM. Exports out of the Southwest region increase, primarily due to increases in natural gas, solar, and wind. Coal fired generation is displaced in all regions due to a $55/ton CO2 cost, which is a carry-over from the previous study cycle and is a reasonable proxy for clean energy policies and industry decisions being enacted across the Western Interconnection as a whole. The Rocky Mountain region joins California as a net importer of energy, primarily due to the displacement of coal fired generation, not being entirely offset by new additions, primarily in the form of wind and solar. Again, this result is in line with both state policy and industry decisions regarding clean energy.

Exports from the Basin region increase with noticeable increases in wind and solar, completely offsetting the displacement of coal fired generation. The Northwest region remains a net exporter with slight increases in wind, solar, and gas to augment the still dominate hydro in the Northwest portfolio mix. The Alberta region approaches a net neutral state based on a self-supply modeling assumption vetted through WECC stakeholders from Alberta. Similarly, British Columbia is self-supplied and remains a net exporter with a portfolio mix consisting primarily of hydro with some slight additions of wind.

17

Owner, 01/04/20,

Maybe it is here that any policy that will cncourage the more cost efficient development of resources (generatio and transmission) for the WECC region might be mentioned based on this analysis?


I have to disagree with this – this does not provide as learning as going state by state and making resource assumnptions based what is acutally happening, and presumes that WY would do the same things as CA…

Owner, 01/04/20,

Interesting

Unserved LoadThis study uses Unserved load (GWh of annual energy) as a metric to measure the impact of various drivers upon which the Scenarios are modeled and to identify a potential reliability risk. In particular, unserved load identifies to some extent the impact of transmission constraints and dispatchable DER-EV as discussed in the Assumptions section of this report. To recap, four different simulations were run for each Scenario comprised of:

No Transmission Constraints (NTC) and No dispatchable DER-EV (NEV) No Transmission Constraints (NTC) and With dispatchable DER-EV (WEV) With Transmission Constraints (WTC) and No dispatchable DER-EV (NEV) With Transmission Constraints (WTC) and With dispatchable DER-EV (WEV)

By comparing a simulation with and without transmission path constraints with unserved load as an impact metric, one can gain a qualitative sense of transmission paths that may offer the most benefit in mitigating unserved load. Similarly, by comparing a simulation with and without dispatchable DER-EV, with unserved load as an impact metric, one can gain a qualitative sense of the extent at which dispatchable DER-EV may offer the most benefit in mitigating unserved load.

As illustrated in Figure 9 Unserved Load in All 2038 Cases, unserved load shows up primarily in Scenario 2 which has the greatest degree of customer adoption of electrification service options. The case with highest unserved load (approximately 5,000 GWh) occurs with transmission constraints (WTC) and no dispatchable DER-EV (NEV). Note the following differences from this result in the other data in Figure 9:

With no transmission constraints enforced (SC2-NTC-NEV), the amount of unserved load drops to roughly 2,100 GWh.

With dispatchable DER-EV (SC2-WTC-WEV), the amount of unserved load drops to 2,800 GWh.

With both NTC and WEV together (SC2-NTC-WEV), the amount of unserved load drops below 1,000 GWh.

Note that WEV is modeled as an hourly resource with pricing points set at the monthly average Locational Marginal Prices (LMP) of the NEV simulations. WEV is modeled this way because it is needed most during periods of marginal-to-higher LMPs when the system is operationally stressed rather than during periods where LMPs are low and when the system may have an excess of generation (e.g., the belly of the “duck curve”, when dump energy occurs). Note that, as was discussed in the load modeling within the Assumptions section of this report, the amount of dispatchable DER-EV is very small compared to the static load. Despite that, DER-EV has a relatively large impact on mitigating unserved energy.

18

Owner, 01/04/20,

Here a comment on the longer term impact of this is related to the unknown and widely varying cost of local distribution system improvements. If those local distribution costs improvements are high then the benefits of this dispatchable DER-EV may not be achievable. WECC cannot assume those cost away.


It would have even more if the model data reflected S2 and S4

Owner, 01/04/20,

This appears to be saying that evolution toward a more customer-centered resource portfolio (an issue in the focus question) seems to have some benefits.


What would happen with more utility scale and customer side storage added as S2 implies – it would be much more than EV’s could supply – this statement is not logival given the missing storage in the generation poretfoliosTaken to the extreme, this really means the model runs are sentitivity studies of the NREL electrification study, and not a reflection of the scenaiors.We do not know how other types of storage are working in thes results

Owner, 01/04/20,

This condition is the closest to addressing the focus question of the scenarios in term of the impact of some evolution toward more customer use of DER and EV (and maybe BTM). So we may want to talk about how the results address this.


IS EV the only dispatchable DER in the models? It should be known either yes or no – big implication for S2

Figure 9 Unserved Load in All 2038 Cases

To further explain why a small amount of dispatchable DER-EV is so effective as a mitigation tool for unserved energy, in the context of the modeled scenarios, can be illustrated by comparing the load and generation balance of the 2038 Scenario 2 (2038-SC2-WTC-NEV), illustrated in Figure 10 Scenario 2 Load-Generation Balance (WTC-NEV), to that of the 2028 ADS, illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 10 Scenario 2 Load-Generation Balance (WTC-NEV)

To be more specific, note that the peaks and valleys of 2038-SC2-WTC-NEV are more prominent (spikier) that that of 2028-ADS-P2V2.0.

19

Figure 11 2028 ADS Load-Generation Balance

While this “spikiness” is operationally challenging, especially during ramping, it is also what makes the use of dispatchable DER-EV, as well as storage in general, ideal for trimming diurnal load peaks when the system is most vulnerable to dropping load. By setting the price points of dispatchable DER-EV at the average marginal LMP (in this case monthly) from corresponding NEV simulations, dispatchable DER-EV is exercised in the WEV simulations only when the system is stressed or constrained and not during the valley periods when it could adversely contribute to energy spillage (dump energy).

Figure 12 Scenario 2 Inter-Regional Flows, With and Without Transmission Constraints illustrates how the path flows change on the WI in Scenario 2 with transmission constraints (WTC) and with no transmission constraints. Note the following from this figure:

Unserved energy of NTC-NEV dropped by nearly 3,000 GWh compared to that of WTC-NEV.

Path flows increase into the Rocky Mountain region from all neighboring WI regions.

Path flows decrease into the California region from all neighboring WI regions, except for the Basin Region.

The path flow from the Basin Region to the Northwest region increases. Exports from the Northwest region decrease. All other path flows remain relatively unchanged.

These flows are annual and, therefore, a summation of all seasonal flows combined. Given that the Northwest region, and to some extent the Rocky Mountain region, are winter peaking while the Southwest, Basin, and California regions are summer peaking, suggests that the Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions could rely more on the Southwest, Basin, and California regions if south to north transfer capability were increased, primarily, it appears, around the Basin region.Figure 12 Scenario 2 Inter-Regional Flows, With and Without Transmission Constraints

2038- SC2-WTC-NEV 2038- SC2-NTC-NEV

20

Owner, 01/04/20,

This essentially suggest how the Bulk transmission system would be used in Scenario 2 and validates the BES continued viability. This is an important result related to the focus question. This document may want to close with a section revisiting the focus question and stating what we have learned at this point and where we may need additional work (i.e., BTM modeling).

Owner, 01/04/20,

I wonder is this basically saying that energy is not “supplied” as much as demand is moderated from EV charging to reduce unserved energy. May need to clarify what is actually going on here.

Resource Portfolio MixThe companion Appendixes document to this assessment report contain both resource mix and path flows for all the case runs, both systemwide and regionally.

The system resource mix for the scenario cases with transmission constrains (WTC) and no dispatchable DER-EV (NEV) is illustrated in Figure 13 Systemwide Resource Mix for All Scenarios, WTC-NE. As can be seen in Figure 13 Systemwide Resource Mix for All Scenarios, WTC-NE, there is a slight increase in the percentage of gas fired generation in Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 where customer adoption of new service options are assumed and correspondingly where loads are higher. The portfolio mixes across Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 and across Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 (representative market bases versus policy bases) are relatively unchanged. Except for coal-fired generation being displaced, market and policy drivers, to the extent that they were modeled (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)), had very little impact to the resource portfolio mix. This is attributed mainly to lower investment and production costs associated with renewable energy. The main drivers of change in resource mix across all scenarios are load and economics where gas-fired generation was the last resource to be deployed in the supply stack to round out the system adequacy needs.

Figure 13 Systemwide Resource Mix for All Scenarios, WTC-NEV

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

21

Owner, 01/04/20,

Table missing labels.


I would say that these generation stacks are way too close for any useful understanding of the scenariosDoes this say that the assumptions in the NREL studies and other policy and cost assumptions really don’t have much effect one way or another ?


The Reference Case needs to be shown for comparison


Overall, these need to be much bigger to see evernthing, even if this page is done in landscape.The legends for sure need to be bigger and the percentages showm next to each color/gen type as many % are hidden in the slices, e.g., DER-EV doesn’t even show up – is this a missing data point or is it hidden somehow


Again, what NG price was used, and did the $55 carbon prive have any impact? More storage would have had an impact on how much gas was used for reserve


What policies were in fact model, and which, based on the scenario narratives, were left out? This should be clarified


Coal DER-EV DG/DR/EE/BTM Geo/Bio Hydro Nuclear Other

Solar-CSP

Solar-PV Storage-ES NG-CC NG-CT/OGS

Storage-PS

Wind

Figure 14 System Resource Additions and Displacements, All Scenarios, WTC-NE further illustrates this relationship between resource additions and displacements relative to the 2028 ADS P2v2.0. Note that the displacement of coal is the same in all scenarios but appears to be smaller in Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 relative to Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. This is because the graph scales are increased in Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 due to higher load and increased additions of gas fired generation.

Figure 14 System Resource Additions and Displacements, All Scenarios, WTC-NEV

System Resource Additions/Displacements –With Transmission Constraints and No Dispatchable DER-EV


22


Again, way too similar, and note the missing of storage, and how close growth for wind and solar in all scenarios. S3 has more soalr and wind growth than either S2 or S4, and that needs to be explainedDER-EV doesn’t even show up?


Note that the percentage of gas in the resource mix increases with an increase in load, while the other resource types remain constant. This trend was repeated across all scenarios under all conditions where gas was primarily the only resource that changed in the mixes.

Transmission PathsFigure 15 Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2028-ADS-P2v2.0 Illustrates the most heavily utilized paths in the 2028 ADS P2v2.0 case.

23

Owner, 01/04/20,

This is going to cause fuss from people who think renewables can compete with gas in all of its reliability functions. So may as well address it here.

Figure 15 Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2028-ADS-P2v2.0

When compared to Figure 16 Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV, which shows the most heavily utilized paths for the 2038 Reference case WTC and WEV, it is observed that the path utilizations substantially increase, particularly in the Basin region.

24

Figure 16 Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV

Figure 17 Change in Path Utilization - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV further illustrates the change in utilization across the transmission paths for the Reference case.

25

Figure 17 Change in Path Utilization - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV

As can be seen in Figure 18 Transmission Regional Path Flows - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV, the change generation portfolio mix, particularly in the Basin and the Southwest, driving the increases in the path utilizations.

Figure 18 Transmission Regional Path Flows - 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV

2038-Ref-WTC-NEV - Transmission Regional Path Flows (Annual GWh)2028 ADS P2v2.0 2038-Ref-WTC-NEV

26


What do the codes U75, U90, and U99 mean for those not up to speed on the details of WECC planning acronyms?

Transmission path flows in the scenario studies were found to be similar across all cases and driven primarily by the generation portfolio mix which, as mentioned earlier, remained fairly constant across all scenario studies with the exception of natural gas fired resources added to the mix as loads increased.

EconomicsFigure 19 Weighted Average Annual LMPs ($/MWh) by Case and Region illustrates how the locational marginal price (LMP) is affected by different case sensitivities. For the most part, the weighted average annual LMP was observed to be roughly less than $20/MWh for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 across all sensitivities. In Scenario 2 and Scenario 4, the LMP was between $20/MWh and $30/MWh with the exceptions of the Basin and Rocky Mountain regions in Scenario 2 due to congestion and higher loads in Scenario 2.

27

Figure 19 Weighted Average Annual LMPs ($/MWh) by Case and Region

5. Observations and ConclusionsBased on the analyses completed in this assessment, the SDS observed the following:

1. Resource retirements between 2028 and 2038, as modeled in the 2028 ADS P2v2.0, amount to 104,000 MW of installed capacity that could be lost to the grid and could result in significant levels of unserved energy amounting to as much as 16,000 GWh annually in the long term.

2. Each of the four WECC Scenarios, if realized, would change inter-Regional flows within the Western Interconnection. Path utilizations were observed to increase, especially in the Basin and Rocky Mountain regions.

3. Scenario 2 could present a significant risk to the ability of load serving entities to meet all demands for energy in 2038. The availability of dispatchable distributed energy could significantly mitigate the risk of unserved energy for Scenario 2.

4. All four Scenarios indicate an increasing need for natural gas-fired resources. Thus, resource planners should ensure that fuel supply and other policies support the ongoing future use of natural gas for power generation.

5. With increased electrification, the peaks and valleys of diurnal load profiles become spikier, leading to operational challenges and increased risks to system reliability during peak and ramping periods.

28


What happens when you account for the addressing of GHG emssions that occur in S2 and S4? That would drive gas out and use other resources – this statement needs to be thought through


Perhaps not if storage were added as antipated in S2 and perhaps S4


Even more so with DER, customer side generation and storage anticipated in S2 and S$ added

6. Flexible DER from electric vehicle battery storage (DER-EV) and battery storage in general has the potential of being very effective in smoothing the spikiness of diurnal electrification load profiles.

7. Pricing points for flexible DER at or above average monthly marginal prices for energy appear to be most effective in smoothing the spikiness of diurnal electrification load profiles.

8. The most significant influence of policy drivers on the study results was that of a $55/ton CO2 price which led to all coal fired generation being displaced.

9. The amount of clean energy technologies in the overall resource portfolio mix remained constant across all scenarios at between 65% and 70%. All available renewable generation within the NREL generation portfolio was committed in the results.

10.While the amount of natural gas in the resource portfolio mix increased as load increased, its shares of the overall resource portfolio mix ranged between 30% and 35%. It was observed that a heavy dependence on natural gas fired generation is required with coal displacements and increased spikiness of diurnal load shapes.

11.With increased concentration of renewable price taking resources, average LMPs dropped to below $30/MWh in all cases with the exception of Scenario 2 where load was higher and congestion was observed in the Basin and Rocky Mountain regions.

12.Transmission path utilizations increased substantially in the Basin region of Western Interconnection (WI).

13.There is a need for market mechanisms to evolve as electrification and customer adoption increase in terms including rates, pricing, time-of-use (TOU), and technology advancement.

14.Better tools, methods, and data are needed to model DER effictively.15.Development of load and generation scenario ensembles to augment WECC’s study

capabilities would be beneficial. Examples are high renewable and storage resource ensembles and more refined end-use load models.

6. RecommendationsBased on the team’s observations and conclusions, the following recommendations are suggested.

1. Resource retirements across the Western Interconnection (WI) need to be investigated and life extensions of existing resources should be considered.

2. With transformational changes occurring to the WI, better methods of co-optimizing generation and transmission need to be developed.

3. Better methods and models need to be developed to represent DER.4. Load and generation ensembles based on transformational drivers need to be

assembled and used in better sensitivity studies. New and better tools and methods of studying the transformational changes occurring to the WI need to be developed.

29


See note on 3


The fact that the DER, boith BTM and front of meter, customer side self generation, and storage as anticipated in S2 and S4 were left out of modeling data assumptions means we really don’t understand the scenarios


Where is it in the Ref Case? See my comment on 3 and 4 above


This should not be the case as S2 and S4 should have moreAnd, what is happening in the Ref Case?

5. Collaboration with the national laboratories (e.g., NREL) needs to continue to leverage the research and expertise that they offer.

6. Better metrics on storage technologies and the benefits they may offer to the BPS need to be better understood and studied.

7. Seasonal variations on path flows need to be studied further as resource portfolios change.

8. Transmission enhancements to the Basin and Rocky Mountain regions need to be studied further.

Note for GH only on report overall

30

WECC receives data used in its analyses from a wide variety of sources. WECC strives to source its data from reliable entities and undertakes reasonable efforts to validate the accuracy of the data used. WECC believes the data contained herein and used in its analyses is accurate and reliable. However, WECC disclaims any and all representations, guarantees, warranties, and liability for the information contained herein and any use thereof. Persons who use and rely on the information contained herein do so at their own risk.

31

Documents

WECC 2019 Scenario Assess Draft Rpt v0.1_GH RM ... 2019 Scen… · Web viewMay want to add something here about the difficulty in modeling behind the meter resources and potential