1 Long-term Renewables Planning Methodology, Inputs and Assumptions for the 2010 Long-Term...
-
Upload
liliana-bishop -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Long-term Renewables Planning Methodology, Inputs and Assumptions for the 2010 Long-Term...
1
Long-term Renewables Planning Methodology, Inputs and Assumptions
for the 2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan Proceeding
California Public Utilities CommissionJune 18, 2010
2
• Introduction, scope, context
• Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
3
Scope and Purpose
• Workshop scope: RPS planning in the LTPP system proceeding– Not the broader LTPP system planning
activities
• Workshop purpose:– 33% RPS Implementation Analysis – Review
study, comments– RPS Planning in the 2010 LTPP – Begin
refining assumptions and methodologies for an updated study
4
Scope and Purpose
• Proceeding scope: LTPP system proceeding is not the forum for deciding RPS procurement obligations. Rather, results from RPS analyses could serve three purposes:
– Identify type and quantity of new system resources needed reliably integrate renewables – Decided in LTPP system proceeding
– Identify high-level (conceptual) transmission needs to meet renewable targets – Coordinated with ISO’s transmission planning process
– Generate alternative RPS procurement strategies – Inform the RPS proceeding
5
Background
• Previous Commission Decisions– Since D. 05-07-039, the Commission has stated its intent to integrate long-
term RPS planning into the LTPP proceeding.– D.07-12-052 (2006 LTPP decision) directed parties to work with Energy
Division to refine a methodology for RPS resource planning and analysis
• February 14, 2008 Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) for the 2008 LTPP proceeding (R.08-02-007) – OIR launched to integrate and refine procurement policies, including further
analysis regarding the feasibility and cost of 33% renewables
• August 28, 2008 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (ACR) and Scoping Memo– Established separate track for Energy Division’s 33% RPS Implementation
Analysis project
• June 2009 33% RPS Implementation Analysis: Preliminary Report
6
Background (cont’d)
• July 1, 2009 Amended ACR and Scoping Memo released the Energy Division Straw Proposal on LTPP Planning Standards (Staff Proposal)
• Working Principle – Resource plans should consider the scale of investment in transmission and flexible fossil resources to integrate and deliver new renewables– Commission “expect[s] the data produced out of RETI…to be utilized in the
[LTPP] proceeding.” (OIR at p. A-9)
– Transmission permitting based on TEAM decision relies on use of assumptions that are consistent with resource plans and system assumptions used in the procurement proceedings (D.06-11-018 at OP 1 and p. A-2)
• A single, statewide “Renewables and Transmission Study” is needed as a foundational element
7
R.10-05-006 OIR (2010 LTPP)
• Three Tracks– Track 1: System– Track 2: Bundled– Track 3: Rule and Policy issues
• System track is “to indentify CPUC-jurisdictional needs for new resources to meet system or local resource adequacy need over the 2011-2020 planning horizon, including issues related to long-term renewables planning”
8
R.10-05-006 (cont’d)
• Outlines several staff proposals which would be issued by ruling:– Planning Standards (Part 1)– Planning Standards (Part 2): RPS– Planning Standards (Part 3): EE
9
Introduction, scope, context
• Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
10
Proposed Definitions
• Scenario – A possible future state of the world encompassing assumptions about policy requirements, market realities and resource development choices.
• Sensitivity – A test to measure the change in output variable (e.g., cost, resource need) due to a change in input assumptions and parameters.
• Case – A set of input assumptions and parameters (e.g., gas price, or electricity demand) under a given scenario that drives the selection of a given portfolio of resources.
• Portfolio – A set of electric resources, both supply-side and demand-side, that provides electric service to all system ratepayers, under a given scenario.
11
Proposed Guiding Principles for RPS Planning
Inputs, Assumptions and Methodology
1. Assumptions should reflect the behavior of market participants, to the extent possible
2. Methodology should be consistent with previous regulatory decisions, to the extent applicable
3. Any proposal should explain the policy basis for the proposal
4. Any proposal must include supporting documentation
12
Proposed Guiding Principles for RPS Planning
RPS Scenarios
5. RPS scenarios should be reasonably feasible and reflect plausible procurement strategies with associated (conceptual) transmission.
6. RPS scenarios should represent substantially unique procurement strategies resulting in material changes to corresponding (fossil) procurement needs and/or required (conceptual) transmission.
7. RPS scenarios should be limited to 3-5
13
Proposed Approach to Scenario Development
RPS generation under dev’t
& contracted to CA byQ1 2010
Discounted Core
Cost-constrained
Scenario
Time-constrained
Scenario
Environmentally-constrained
Scenario
Trajectory Scenario
Balanced Scenario – determined
2011?
RPS generation
delivering to CA by
Q1 2010
33%of2020 Retail Sales
14
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
RPS Model Methodology
Arne Olson, Partner
Doug Allen, Consultant
16
Contents
Updates to Previous 33% Implementation Analysis
Resource Potential, Cost, and Performance
Portfolio Selection Methodology
Updates to Previous 33% Implementation Analysis
18
Current Analysis Compared to 2009 Implementation Analysis
33% RPS Implementation Analysis was focused on informing state RPS policy
Key tasks:
1. Develop “plausible scenarios” for achieving 33% by 2020
2. Estimate the net ratepayer costs associated with each plausible scenario
3. Highlight key obstacles to reaching the 33% goal, including the need for new transmission and the integration costs of new resources
The current analysis is focused on informing state RPS planning
Key tasks:
1. Develop “plausible scenarios” for achieving 33% by 2020
2. Estimate year-by-year resource build-outs under each alternative scenario
3. Feed information into LTPP proceeding to inform the Commission’s decisions regarding fossil procurement
19
Weaknesses of Previous 33% Implementation Study
New transmission is assumed for most projects
No way to determine which projects could get built without new lines
Renewable projects are selected in aggregated “bundles” and could not be selected individually
Crude methodology for addressing potential out-of-state REC resources (“Out-of-State Early”, “Out-of-State Late”)
Did not look at operational impacts of renewables at such high levels of penetration
Integration costs for intermittent resources based on a rule of thumb
Lack of transparency in handling of short-listed CPUC projects
Project viability ratings not very scientific
20
Key Improvements in Portfolio Development Methodology
Improved handling of transmission requirements for new renewable resources
Allows some resource to be delivered over existing transmission or with minor upgrades
Allows individual selection of Non-CREZ resources
Incorporation of unbundled REC resources
Can now model out-of-state REC-only resources as well as out-of-state CREZs
Incorporation of “Discounted Core” of commercial projects
Projects in advanced stage of permitting and development
21
Other Updates to Analysis
Improved detail on Commercial projects in CPUC ED Database
CREZ assignments
2009 solicitations
Confidential projects either aggregated or excluded to improve transparency
New Aspen environmental scores
Updated resource list based on RETI Phase 2B analysis
Updated RPS Net Short based on:
2009 IEPR Load Forecast
New load decrements for EE and CHP calculated by CPUC
Existing renewable resources from 2008 Net System Power Report
Resource Potential, Cost, and Performance
23
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
24
Determining Demand for Renewables
Demand for renewables in California is based on 2020 RPS target, equal to 33% of eligible retail sales
2020 retail sales based on CEC 2009 IEPR load forecast
Excludes retail sales by small LSEs (<200 GWh/yr)
Estimate quantity of renewable resources online in base year
Used renewable resource “claims” from CEC 2008 Net System Power Report
Added new resources online in 2009 based on ED Database
RPS resource gap is the difference between the 2020 target and the 2009 renewables claims
25
Renewable Net Short
33 33 33
26
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
26
Sources of New Resources to Fill Resource Gap
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
27
Updated ED Database
Analysis incorporates the latest ED Database, including 2009 IOU solicitations
Contracted projects are included individually
Shortlisted projects are aggregated by resource type and zone in cases where there are at least three such projects to preserve confidentiality (otherwise they are left out)
Distribution of projects among zones has changed since previous analysis
CREZ MW GWh
Tehachapi 4,174 11,239
Northwest 1,805 4,137
Pisgah 1,700 3,974
NonCREZ 841 3,831
Imperial South 1,074 3,042
Riverside East 1,042 2,547
Alberta 886 2,422
Carrizo South 849 1,980
Mountain Pass 710 1,720
Nevada C 500 1,415
Colorado 420 1,301
San Diego South 415 1,293
Montana 300 820
Imperial North 109 770
Fairmont 296 752
Arizona 290 737
Solano 240 704
Kramer 250 584
Inyokern 242 566
Distributed Solar - PG&E 244 468
Distributed Solar - SCE 140 290
Round Mountain 86 281
New Mexico 32 238
Santa Barbara 83 238
Palm Springs 77 222
Nevada N 30 212
Imperial East 30 212
Utah-Southern Idaho 90 191
San Bernardino - Lucerne 49 170
Total 17,003 46,357
28
Current Analysis Previous Analysis Current Analysis Previous Analysis
MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh
Tehachapi 4,174 11,239 2,038 5,756 Palm Springs 77 222 37 107
Northwest 1,805 4,137 - - Nevada N 30 212 - -
Pisgah 1,700 3,974 800 1,954 Imperial East 30 212 560 1,367
NonCREZ 841 3,831 525 3,118 Utah-Southern Idaho 90 191 - -
Imperial South 1,074 3,042 792 1,944 San Bernardino - Lucerne 49 170 666 1,623
Riverside East 1,042 2,547 2,932 6,855 Baja - - - -
Alberta 886 2,422 - - Barstow - - - -
Carrizo South 849 1,980 - - British Columbia - - - -
Mountain Pass 710 1,720 1,480 3,523 Carrizo North - - - -
Nevada C 500 1,415 30 228 Cuyama - - - -
Colorado 420 1,301 - - Iron Mountain - - 368 897
San Diego South 415 1,293 225 650 Lassen North - - 53 384
Montana 300 820 - - Lassen South - - - -
Imperial North 109 770 569 2,472 Owens Valley - - 55 307
Fairmont 296 752 384 907 San Bernardino - Baker - - - -
Arizona 290 737 - - San Diego North Central - - 87 333
Solano 240 704 150 434 Twentynine Palms - - 67 194
Kramer 250 584 837 2,016 Victorville - - 160 342
Inyokern 242 566 - - Westlands - - - -
Distributed Solar - PG&E 244 468 - - Wyoming - - - -
Distributed Solar - SCE 140 290 - - Needles n/a n/a 747 1,911
Round Mountain 86 281 125 468 Out-of-State Early n/a n/a 2,062 6,617
New Mexico 32 238 - - Out-of-State Late n/a n/a 534 1,304
Santa Barbara 83 238 83 238 Total 17,003 46,357 16,363 45,950
CREZ CREZ
Changes in the ED Database
29
Breakdown of the ED Database
Discounted Core Non-Discounted CoreExcluded from Model
to Preserve Confidentiality
Total ED Database Projects
MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh
Biogas 12 84 28 195 - - 40 279
Biomass 158 1,176 8 56 20 149 186 1,381
Geothermal 70 494 439 3,101 336 2,370 845 5,965
Hydro - - 26 79 - - 26 79
Large Scale Solar PV 2,068 5,068 2,087 4,970 975 2,322 5,130 12,359
Small Solar PV 384 758 - - - - 384 758
Solar Thermal 2,744 6,414 1,305 3,050 153 358 4,202 9,822
Wind 3,684 10,049 3,991 10,862 1,098 2,987 8,772 23,898 Total 9,120 24,044 7,883 22,313 2,581 8,186 19,584 54,542
Signed - ApprovedSigned - Pending
ApprovalIn Negotiations
Total Projects Included in RES
CalculatorMW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh
Biogas 21 144 19 135 - - 40 279
Biomass 89 659 77 573 - - 166 1,232
Geothermal 219 1,547 290 2,048 - - 509 3,595
Hydro - - 26 79 - - 26 79
Large Scale Solar PV 1,138 2,724 1,421 3,591 1,596 3,722 4,155 10,037
Small Solar PV 7 14 268 536 109 209 384 758
Solar Thermal 1,615 3,775 2,434 5,689 - - 4,049 9,464
Wind 2,950 8,034 814 2,249 3,910 10,629 7,675 20,911 Total 6,039 16,896 5,349 14,900 5,615 14,560 17,003 46,357
30
Treatment of Commercial Projects
Commercial projects are divided into two categories:
1. Discounted Core: Project has obtained or has made significant progress towards obtaining a permit
2. Non-Discounted Core: Project has made limited progress towards obtaining a permit
Discounted Core projects are given first priority in the resource selection sorts, reflecting their high probability of development
Non-Discounted Core projects are given priority over generic resources but are not guaranteed development
POU planned resources treated as Non-Discounted core
31
POU Resources
E3 has included POU resource procurement plans in the development of the resource portfolios based on CEC data
POU resources are included as Non-Discounted Core commercial resources
In-State Out-of-State
MW GWh MW GWh
Biogas 145 1,013 - -
Biomass - - 2 12
Geothermal 550 3,884 42 299
Hydro - Small - - 156 478
Solar Thermal 358 836 - -
Solar PV - - - -
Wind 504 1,455 648 1,871
Total 1,557 7,188 848 2,660
32
RETI Phase 2B Database
The updated RETI Phase 2B Database contains site-specific information for renewable resource potential, cost, and performance in California
Out-of-state resources from the WREZ Transmission Model have been incorporated with the RETI data
WREZ estimates of potential represent high-quality remote renewable resources that would require significant transmission upgrades to reach load centers
33
Out of State Renewable Resource Data from E3 Models E3 maintains a database of renewable resource
cost and performance data in the West
Wind and solar data based on NREL GIS modeling
Geothermal and hydro data from EIA
Biomass aggregated from various sources
Additional resource data for BC and Alberta
Used to supplement WREZ data for out-of-state resources (Montana, Colorado, BC, Alberta)
34
Estimates of Statewide DG Potential
As part of the 2010 LTPP, E3 and Black & Veatch collaborated to develop original estimates of the statewide potential of solar PV
The RPS model integrates these estimates, allowing it to evaluate the viability of the development of these resources
RegionEasy to
InterconnectHarder to
InterconnectTotal
North Coast 1148 1440 2588Central Valley 1237 5693 6931South Coast 1890 433 2323Mojave Desert 694 1600 2294TOTAL 4970 9167 14136
35
Resource Cost and Performance
E3 used site-specific data on resource cost and performance where available (RETI and WREZ projects)
Generic assumptions were developed for resources without specific information based on averages of the RETI data (shown below)
Biogas - Landfill
Biogas - Other
Biomass GeothermalHydro - Small
Large Scale Solar
PV
Small Solar PV
Solar Thermal
Wind
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2,750$ 5,500$ 4,522$ 6,379$ 3,300$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 5,300$ 2,371$
Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 130$ 165$ 72$ -$ 25$ 50$ 50$ 66$ 60$
Variable O&M ($/MWh) -$ -$ 17$ 38$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 12,070 13,200 14,800 - - - - - -
Capacity Factor (%) 80.0% 80.0% 85.0% 80.6% 35.0% 27.8% 23.7% 26.7% 32.9%
On-Peak Availability (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 65% 65% 65% 78%* 11%**
LCOE ($/MWh) 92$ 121$ 106$ 148$ 161$ 142$ 216$ 202$ 95$
* On-peak availability for solar thermal varies between 70% and 85% based on CREZ
** On-peak availability shown is for in-state resources; out-of-state wind resources have an on-peak availability value of 20% in California
36
Generic Resource Cost Assumptions
$92 $95 $106$142 $148 $161
$202 $216
0
50
100
150
200
250
Biogas -Landfill
Wind Biomass LargeScale
Solar PV
Geo-thermal
Hydro -Small
SolarThermal
SmallSolar PV
20
20
LC
OE
in
20
08
$/M
Wh
37
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
38
Transmission Bundles
Resources in CREZs are aggregated into transmission bundles in the following order:
1. Existing transmission bundle
2. Minor upgrade bundle
3. New transmission bundle
Discounted core projects given first priority to fill each transmission bundle
Non-core Commercial projects given next priority to fill the New Transmission bundle
Any remaining transmission capacity in the bundle is allocated to the lowest-scoring generic projects
Up to 3000 MW of new transmission allowed for each CREZ
39
Examples of Transmission Capacity Allocation
300
600
1500
400 361
1000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
(1)
Ex
isti
ng
Tra
ns
mis
sio
n
(2)
Inc
rem
en
tal
Up
gra
de
(3)
Ne
wT
ran
sm
iss
ion
(1)
Ex
isti
ng
Tra
ns
mis
sio
n
(2)
Inc
rem
en
tal
Up
gra
de
(3)
Ne
wT
ran
sm
iss
ion
Example Buildup 1 Example Buildup 2
Av
aila
ble
Ca
pa
cit
y (
MW
)
Discounted Core Commercial Projects Theoretical Projects
40
Examples of Transmission Capacity Allocation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
Av
aila
ble
Ca
pa
cit
y (
MW
)
Existing Transmission Minor Upgrades New Line
Discounted Core Commercial Projects Theoretical Projects
41
Out-of-State REC Resources
Out-of-State RECs previously included in two “zones” (“Out-of-State Early” and “Out-of-State Late”)
New model can select REC resources individually
Assume physical limitations on wind integration for each region
REC resources priced at long-run “Green Premium” or Cost minus Value
REC resources optimized for access to transmission, not for resource quality – RECs are allowed for average quality resources, not best sites
Pricing based on long-run cost, not REC market price forecast (analogous to in-state resources)
No pricing distinction between different types of RECs (bundled vs. unbundled, with or without delivery requirement)
42
Unbundled Out-of-State REC-Only Transaction
Leg 1: Developer to Mid-C
Mid-C Market
Leg 2: CAISO to load
Pure REC transaction with no energy purchase requirement and no delivery requirement
Developer sells energy at Mid-C
California LSE purchases REC from developer at LCOE minus Mid-C price
Separately, California LSE arranges for energy transaction from CAISO market to load
California LSE never owns energy
No incremental imports to California
43
Out-of-State REC with Delivery Requirement
Leg 1: CA utility to
Mid-C
Mid-C Market
Leg 2: CAISO to load
REC transaction with energy purchase requirement and delivery requirement
California LSE purchases energy and REC from developer at LCOE of wind facility and sells energy at Mid-C
Separately, California LSE arranges for energy transaction from CAISO market to load
California LSE rebundles REC with transaction from Mid-C to CAISO that would have occurred anyway!
No incremental imports to California
Leg 3: Mid-C to CAISO
44
Pricing of Out-of-State REC vs. In-State Resource
In-State Resource priced at LCOE, ratepayer impact is cost relative to market value or “Green Premium”
Out-of-State REC priced directly at “Green Premium”
Energy and capacity values vary by market (higher in California)
Pricing is the same for all flavors of RECs
In-State Wind Resource
Out-of-State Wind REC
Levelized Cost of Wind Energy $ 90.00 $ 75.00
Integration Costs in Local Market $ 6.00 $ 6.00
Energy Value in Local Market (Mid-C or Palo Verde) $ (55.00) $ (45.00)
Capacity Value in Local Market (Mid-C or Palo Verde) $ (5.00) $ -
Net Cost to CA Ratepayers ("Green Premium") $ 36.00 $ 36.00
REC Price $ - $ 36.00
Example of In-State vs. REC-only Pricing
45
Physical Limits on Out-of-State REC SupplyM
arke
t V
alu
e o
f W
ind
En
erg
y $/
MW
h
MW of Intermittent Renewables
Initially, wind displaces gas resources
More wind reduces market prices and raises integration costs
Value decreases significantly as wind displaces baseload
There is a practical limit to how much intermittent energy each zone can easily accept
46
Physical Limits on Out-of-State REC Supply
There is a practical limit to how much intermittent energy each zone can easily accept
Mar
ket
Val
ue
of
Win
d E
ner
gy
$/M
Wh
MW of Intermittent Renewables
Initially, wind displaces gas resources
More wind reduces market prices and raises integration costs
Value decreases significantly as wind displaces baseload
E3 limited the REC supply based on a simplified representation
47
Limits on Wind Penetration
Ability to easily absorb wind is limited to load served with flexible generation
E3 estimated hourly flexible generation in each zone:
Load – Nuclear – Coal – Base Hydro + Export Transmission Capacity
Wind limit is min value
Other regions also have RPS requirements – assume CA can soak up 50% of each region’s limit
6,461 MW2,257 MW
738 MW404 MW
1,231 MW461 MW
229 MW47 MW
0 MW0 MW
3,665 MW1,371 MW
3,968 MW1,939 MW
2,135 MW 947 MW
1,700 MW850 MW
2,211 MW808 MW
13,745 MW
Total limit on wind in regionWind available to California
Portfolio Selection Methodology
49
Resource Selection Methodology
1. Calculate project score for each resource
2. Allocate lowest-scoring 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
50
Detailed Portfolio Development
Resource Sort for Local Use
Potential CREZ ResourcesPotential Non-CREZ and
REC Resources
Resource Sort for CA Use as RECs
Resource Sort for CA Use Towards RPS
Resources Remaining After Local Sort
Resource Sort for Existing Tx
Resources on Existing Transmission
Resources Remaining After Existing Tx Sort
Resource 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 Portfolio
51
Project Scoring Methodology
Each project is scored on a 0-100 scale based on four metrics (0 is better):
Net Cost
Environmental Score
Commercial Interest Score
Timing Score
Final score for each project is a weighted average of the four individual metrics
Weights are user-defined and vary by scenario
52
Net Cost Score
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
53
Environmental Score
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
Scores for each resource in each CREZ on 0-100 scale
CREZ NameTotal for Biomass
Total for Geotherm
alTotal for Solar PV
Total for Solar
ThermalTotal for
WindPV Rural
DGPV Urban Ground
PV Urban Roof
Barstow 40.3 34.2 34.2 35.3 28.9 24.5 9.9 0.0Carrizo North 32.1 27.1 25.5 26.5 24.4 21.1 8.8 0.0Carrizo South 31.5 26.9 25.1 25.8 25.6 22.0 10.0 0.0Cuyama 35.5 28.8 29.0 30.8 27.2 24.5 10.0 0.0Fairmont 30.9 30.1 35.7 36.4 29.0 24.8 9.4 0.0Imperial East 41.1 31.2 26.2 27.2 25.4 22.5 9.9 0.0Imperial North-A 35.9 26.1 21.4 21.8 24.5 18.1 7.8 0.0Imperial North-B 49.9 34.8 28.6 29.5 34.7 22.4 8.5 0.0Imperial South 46.2 31.7 24.1 24.7 27.5 19.9 8.5 0.0Inyokern 30.9 29.4 33.4 33.9 26.3 24.6 9.9 0.0Iron Mountain 38.5 28.6 22.4 22.5 22.0 21.1 10.0 0.0Kramer 22.8 22.2 27.2 27.6 19.7 17.5 6.2 0.0Lassen North 30.5 31.1 33.0 34.2 31.7 25.6 10.0 0.0Lassen South 24.7 32.5 45.7 52.9 49.7 20.3 5.0 0.0Mountain Pass 40.3 33.5 35.8 36.3 29.4 25.8 9.7 0.0Owens Valley 38.3 30.5 25.4 26.7 24.4 20.9 10.0 0.0Palm Springs 50.5 33.0 29.2 31.8 29.1 21.3 6.8 0.0Pisgah 37.5 27.2 21.1 21.3 20.8 20.5 10.0 0.0Riverside East 28.9 23.8 20.6 20.7 20.5 20.1 9.8 0.0Round Mountain-A 23.1 22.5 23.7 24.3 23.1 21.8 10.0 0.0Round Mountain-B 40.3 36.3 39.5 43.7 35.4 27.1 10.0 0.0San Bernardino - Baker 38.3 29.3 23.5 24.2 22.8 20.9 10.0 0.0San Bernardino - Lucerne 42.4 38.0 43.0 44.1 31.9 27.9 9.8 0.0San Diego North Central 57.3 51.9 69.1 75.3 73.6 41.1 9.5 0.0San Diego South 34.1 31.2 34.3 37.0 29.5 24.6 9.9 0.0Santa Barbara 27.1 23.8 26.9 31.1 22.7 15.4 4.9 0.0Solano 34.6 25.0 25.0 26.6 36.3 16.6 5.0 0.0Tehachapi 29.8 25.6 23.2 23.8 23.5 20.6 9.7 0.0Twentynine Palms 38.9 29.6 24.4 25.1 23.2 21.5 10.0 0.0Victorville 39.2 34.2 38.4 38.9 28.0 25.8 9.4 0.0Westlands 26.4 16.7 10.5 10.9 10.1 9.5 4.5 0.0Arizona 36.2 27.8 23.1 23.5 22.7Nevada 36.8 37.4 43.1 46.2 41.9Oregon 45.9 39.6 36.9 37.6 36.3Baja 45.7 41.6 51.7 56.2 51.5Other 45.9 39.6 36.9 37.6 36.3
Median for CA NonCREZ 35.9 29.6 26.9 27.6 26.3 21.5 9.8 0.0
54
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, online dates filed with the applications
For other resources, dates based on size and type of project
55
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
56
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
57
Proposed Approach to Scenario Development
RPS generation under dev’t
& contracted to CA byQ1 2010
Discounted Core
Cost-constrained
Scenario
Time-constrained
Scenario
Environmentally-constrained
Scenario
Trajectory Scenario
Balanced Scenario – determined
2011?
RPS generation
delivering to CA by
Q1 2010
33%of2020 Retail Sales
58
Approach to Discounted Core
• Goals:– Capture the projects most likely to be online by 2020
– Transparency – rely on public, objective data
• Propose to include projects with both:– PPA signed and approved or under review by CPUC
– Major permit filed and deemed data adequate at relevant permitting agency (Energy Commission, County, etc.)
• Tested other cores:– All projects with PPAs signed and approved/under review
– All projects with certain objective level of developer experience
– Model allows users to to test these other cores
59
Makeup of Possible Discounted Cores
Core DefinitionTotal GWh
Total MW
In State
Solar PV
GWh
Solar Thermal
GWhWind GWh
Geo-thermal
GWhBiomass
GWhARRA
Projects
1New/repowered with PPA signed
34,206 11,830 75% 18% 35% 33% 5% 4% 22
2
New/repowered with PPA signed and permit application deemed data adequate
24,406 8,906 72% 19% 27% 46% 2% 5% 18
3New/repowered with PPA signed and permit application approved
11,442 3,798 59% 7% 10% 78% 3% 3% 5
4
New/repowered with PPA signed and a minimum levels of project development and ownership/O&M experience, and technical feasibility
22,088 7,487 79% 13% 32% 44% 6% 4% 15
60
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
61
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
62
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
63
Transmission Bundles (review)
Resources in CREZs are aggregated into transmission bundles in the following order:
1. Existing transmission bundle
2. Minor upgrade bundle
3. New transmission bundle
Discounted core projects given first priority to fill each transmission bundle
Non-core Commercial projects given next priority to fill the New Transmission bundle
Any remaining transmission capacity in the bundle is allocated to the lowest-scoring generic projects
Up to 3000 MW of new transmission allowed for each CREZ
64
Examples of Transmission Capacity Allocation (review)
300
600
1500
400 361
1000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
(1)
Ex
isti
ng
Tra
ns
mis
sio
n
(2)
Inc
rem
en
tal
Up
gra
de
(3)
Ne
wT
ran
sm
iss
ion
(1)
Ex
isti
ng
Tra
ns
mis
sio
n
(2)
Inc
rem
en
tal
Up
gra
de
(3)
Ne
wT
ran
sm
iss
ion
Example Buildup 1 Example Buildup 2
Av
aila
ble
Ca
pa
cit
y (
MW
)
Discounted Core Commercial Projects Theoretical Projects
65
Transmission sizing and cost
• Weakness of previous study: assumed no capacity on existing transmission system; upgrades essentially all single or double circuit 500kV lines “trunklines”
• Updates:– ISO high-level assessment of capacity from various CREZs 1.)
over existing system; 2.) over relatively minor new upgrades
– Additional lines on case-by-case basis: 500kV for large and out-of-state zones, smaller lines for smaller zones close to loads. Cost = function of length and capacity
– Incorporation of RETI work has been difficult – many CREZs tied to single line segments; many line segments tied to single CREZs; but additional detail would help in cost and timing review
66
Transmission sizing and cost
• See:– California ISO assessment of capacity over existing system and
minor upgrades
– Zaininger Engineering assessment of capacity over RETI lines
• Available here:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm
67
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach
• Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda
68
33% RPS Implementation Analysis
• Timelines created for the 33% Reference Case – not for any of other 3 cases– Timeline 1: Historical experience, reforms/risk
– Timeline 2: Reforms, no risks
– Timeline 3: Reforms + external risks
• Goal: Better understand the tradeoffs between cost, risk, and time associated with particular procurement strategies
• Identify market and regulatory barriers to renewable development
• Identify solutions and their impacts on achievement of a 33% RPS
69
Example – Aspen Environmental Group research into generation timelines
70
Example – Research into transmission timelines
71
33% RPS Reference Case – Timeline 3
72
Timeline Tool
• Black & Veatch tool under development to automate timing considerations, create scenario timelines and supply curves
• Generic generation scheduling factors according to: – Technology– Project size– Land type– Location
• Generic transmission schedules for several types of lines
• User has ability to change/define inputs and timing assumptions; change default schedules and MW counts based on technology and other factors, etc.
73
Timeline Tool
• Data already incorporated– Contracts approved and pending approval – basic
project information– Proxy projects – RETI, others to be added
• ED staff updating tool for consistency with new scenarios still being added
• See mock-up of tool here:http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm
74
Generic generation timing assumptions
• Little change from Implementation Analysis:
Project Type
DevelopmentLength (months)
excludingtransmission
EstimatedCommercialOnline Date
Biogas/Biomass < 50 MW > 50 MW
6272
20152016
Geothermal < 50 MW > 50 MW
4664
20142015
Small Hydro 46 2014
Solar Thermal < 50 MW > 50 MW
5868
20152016
Solar PV < 50 MW > 50 MW
3236
20132013
Wind < 50 MW > 50 MW
3450
20132014
ED Database projects– Filed/approved by
CPUC (public)– Under negotiation
(confidential)
- Per public contract information
- Per generic estimates above
75
Transmission timing assumptions
Transmission ScheduleType
TransmissionPlanning by
CAISO/ POU/WECC(months)
ProjectDescription
Prep byUtility
CEQA/NEPA Review
ByCPUC/POU/
Feds
Final Reviewand Approval
by CPUC/POU/Feds
Final DesignAnd
Construction byUtilities
Total
Existing / Distributed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Typical 18 12 24 4 24 82
Typical - Short 12 6 12 3 18 51
Typical - Long 24 18 24 4 30 100
Long-Distance 24 18 24 6 30 102
Tehachapi 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tehachapi 4-11 0 0 0 0 24 24
Sunrise 0 0 0 0 24 24
Devers - CO River 0 0 0 0 30 30
76
Building scenario timelines
• Each zone and transmission bundle/increment is assigned to a transmission schedule→ no generation in that bundle is available before transmission
• Non-CREZ, distributed resources, and resources accessing existing capacity not reliant on transmission→ available per contract or generic generation schedule
• Each scenario is assigned an “online date” according to the availability of the last generation resource chosen for that scenario
• No “bottlenecks” considered now; what assumptions are appropriate?
77
Timeline Tool – Features to Come
• Aggregated portfolios for alternative cases presented with summary timelines and yearly generation charts
• Timelines for individual projects available for review
• Project development phases are broken out
Example Only
78
Timeline Tool – Features to come (cont’d)
• Yearly generation charts can be broken out by viability class – high, medium, and low viability
Yearly Generation by Viability
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Year
GW
h/yr
Low
Medium
High
Unscored
Example Only
79
Introduction, scope, context Terminology, high-level approach Methodology, Inputs, Assumptions
– Portfolio development– Discounted core– Environmental scoring– PV assessment– Transmission sizing– Timing assessment
• Results
• Next steps for analysis
• Schedule, Summary
Agenda