Elliot Mainzer, BPAKen Dragoon, NWPCCg

NW Wind Integration Forum SC MeetingJune 6, 2011

1 Review the fundamentals concerning our current1. Review the fundamentals concerning our current wind fleet and the regulatory demand for renewables by 2020.

2. Explain the three interrelated challenges of balancing, oversupply, and flexibility adequacy in the context of the region’s broader load/resourcethe context of the region s broader load/resource balance.

3 Review the multiple regional activities that3. Review the multiple regional activities that address these challenges and for which additional solutions may be available over time.

4. Consider the role of additional transmission in the solution set.

2

State Renewable Standards

Montana• 5% for 2008 ‐ 2009 • 10% for 2010 – 2014 • 15% for 2015 and beyond

Washington• 3% by 2012

9% b 2016• 9% by 2016 • 15% for 2020 and beyond

Oregon• 5% by 2011 • 15% by 2015 • 20% by 2020 • 25% for 2025 and beyond

CaliforniaCalifornia• 20% by 2013• 25% by 2016• 33% by 2020

3

Resource by Location:ID: 471 MWID: 471 MWMT: 378 MWOR: 2,595 MWWA: 2,699 MWWY: 135 MW (Contracted to PNW)

4

\\nas1\Power\KD\Wind Integration Forum\Steering Committee\Mtg 6‐6‐11\[Regional Wind Breakdown.xlsm]Breakdown 

Wind Fleet Average Capacity Factor by Calendar Year2007 2008 2009 201030 5% 33 1% 28 8% 27 1%

Wind Fleet Average Capacity Factor by Calendar Year2007 2008 2009 201030 5% 33 1% 28 8% 27 1%30.5% 33.1% 28.8% 27.1%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

30.5% 33.1% 28.8% 27.1%

5

E i B fi• Economic Benefits:– $30 to $60 million annual tax revenues

$12 t $30 illi l lt t– $12 to $30 million annual royalty payments– 350 to 650 new permanent jobs– Average of ~300 temporary construction jobs each– Average of ~300 temporary construction jobs each

year– $12 billion capital investmentp

• Environmental Benefits:– CO2 emissions reduced nearly 30 million tons2 y

• 2011 reduction equivalent to removing 1 million cars.– Nitrogen oxide emissions reduced 450 tons

6

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) Wind Model. July, 2009. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi_wind.html. and Costanti, Mike and Beltrone, Peggy. US Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners. November, 2006. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40403.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). eGRID2010 Version 1.0 Year 2007 GHG Annual Output Emission Rates. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2010V1_0_year07_GHGOutputRates.pdf

Q:\KD\Wind Integration Forum\Steering Committee\Mtg 6-6-11\WInd Additions and Econ Impacts by Year in PNW (2).xlsx

Utility procurement costs and associated rate impactsimpacts.Wind integration charges and balancing costs.Increasing wind generation lowering wholesale g g genergy prices.◦ Lower prices benefit short buyers, hurt long sellers◦ Council analysis suggests RPS resources reduce annualCouncil analysis suggests RPS resources reduce annual

average wholesale market prices by 4-8%, as much as 20% during the spring.

Possible increased wear and tear on balancingPossible increased wear and tear on balancing units, especially hydro.A better understanding of these impacts requires dditi l i f ti d l iadditional information and analysis.

7

• PNW and CA RPS targets would require ~10,000 MW of installed NW wind by 2020.• Nearly 6,000 MW currently operating or under construction.

• At least 14,400 MW of supply between existing projects and interconnection requests.• Significant excess supply relative to 2020 regulatory demand.• BPA has offered ~ 9,300 MW of transmission service to wind projects.

8Based on BPA’s wind interconnection queue and work done by E3

NW‐>BC

Northern Lights

WOMR

MATLJDF 1NW‐>BC

CF‐LMMT‐NW Upgrade

CascadesHem‐Board

WOMR

I‐5

CF‐LMWW‐McN

WCC MSTICascades Crossing

Hem‐Capt J

Chinook

Gateway W

Gateway S

p

Can‐N CA

SWIP N

SWIP S

9

• Resource Adequacy Forum Findingsq y g• System is expected to have sufficient energy and peaking 

capability to meet demands through 2015 (existing resources, projected energy efficiency).

• System has moved from being primarily energy constrained to about equally constrained by energy and peaking capability. 

LOLP (%) Winter Cap Winter Eng Summer Cap Summer EngNew Base 1.9 0.5 0.5 1.0

Adequacy Standard = 5% (one in twenty)2015 analysis of existing generation, additional conservation per Council Sixth Power Plan.

10

y g g , p

24,000Firm Energy – MWa

22,000

23,000 Demand

50,000

January Peak Capability - MW

21,000 Supply 40,000

45,000 Demand

20,000

2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 30,000

35,000

Supply

20,000

25,000

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Supply

Attendant Energy

May 24, 2011 11

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020Attendant Energy Shortage in Winter Months.

Looking ForwardSixth Plan Resource Portfolio*

9000

*Expected Value Build Out. Actual build out schedule depends on future conditions

6000

7000

8000

9000

sourc

ew

atts

)

NG SingleCycleDemandResponse

3000

4000

5000

6000

ula

tive

Res

rage

Meg

a Simple-CycleGasCombined-Cycle GasR bl

0

1000

2000

3000

Cum

(Ave Renewables

Efficiency

2009 2014 2019 2024

Replacing ~2,000 MWa coal plant generation:Reduce exports (~50% of lost energy)Increase use of existing gas plants (~17%)Ramp up efficiency programs (~16%)Increase renewable energy (~1%)

12

Increase renewable energy ( 1%)Build new gas generation (~18%)     

Coal Plant Replacement in Sixth Power Plan, Morlan, NPPC 6/2011

• Provision of Balancing Services• Provision of Balancing Services– How can we manage wind variability in a reliable,

efficient manner while recognizing the limits on theefficient manner while recognizing the limits on the region’s hydro flexibility?

• Oversupplypp y– How can we reliably and equitably manage high

hydro/high wind conditions?• System Flexibility

– How much do we have, how much will we need?

13

January 22, 2011 Wind Data

2500

1500

2000

2500

DSO 216 Curtailment

1000

1500

MW

s

0

500

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ScheduleActual

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

Hours 4 a.m - noon

14

• Improved wind forecasting and state awarenessp g• Intra-hour scheduling/ITAP/Dynamic Scheduling

System• BPA Committed Intra-hour Scheduling PilotBPA Committed Intra hour Scheduling Pilot• Iberdrola Self-Supply Pilot• NW Power Pool Combined Reserve Task Force

BPA/other purchase of third party supplied• BPA/other purchase of third party supplied balancing reserves

• WSPP Ancillary Service Schedule FilingWECC E I b l M k t (EIM) t b fit• WECC Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) cost-benefit analysis

• Dynamic Transfer Capability Study Group• Ace Diversity Initiative and Reliability-Based Control• SmartGrid/Demand Response

15

Reduce output of non-variable resources within BPA’ t l t i i ti l lBPA’s control area to minimum generation level.◦ About 6,348 MW-hrs of reduced generation through June 2.◦ Remaining non-variable generation in BPA’s balancing

authority is around 100 MW (out of 7000 MW nameplate).

ER has been implemented nightly since May 18ER has been implemented nightly since May 18 except for May 25 and June 1. ◦ About 55 235 MW hrs of wind generation has been replaced◦ About 55,235 MW-hrs of wind generation has been replaced

by FCRPS hydro generation since May 18. ◦ About 15% of the wind generation was reduced due to

Environmental Redispatch during this period.◦ ER has been implemented in the range of 4-7 hrs per night.

16

Power and Conservation Council analysis suggests that the likelihood of oversupply events has increased significantly sincelikelihood of oversupply events has increased significantly since 2008, but will remain roughly constant as load growth catches up with renewable build-out.

600

700PNW RPS + 3000 RECs to CA

PNW RPS

F RPS

300

400

500

ours/Yr

Frozen RPS

100

200

300H

0

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028

17From Power and Conservation Council draft, “The Effects of an Increasing Surplus of Energy Generating Capability in the Pacific Northwest,” paper, 2011‐01.

Refine BPA/Council oversupply forecasting and financial evaluation

Continue short-term measures that can reduce need for Environmental Redispatch◦ Maximize displacement of thermal generation◦ Optimize transmission maintenance schedulesp◦ Maximize storage/draft flexibility with Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Canada.◦ Maintain open communication through Friday Spring Operations call

Evaluation of other suggested physical market and institutional alternativesEvaluation of other suggested physical, market and institutional alternatives◦ New intertie transmission◦ Storage/load control◦ Reducing dissolved gas levels (e.g., flow diverters, temperature control)

Pumping load◦ Pumping load◦ Fuel substitution (e.g., steam processes).◦ Resistive (dummy) load banks.◦ Encourage diverse wind, or non-wind renewable resource development.

Alternative cost-allocation/legislative approaches

18

The absolute magnitude of ramps on BPA’s system is increasing, g p y g,although ramping as a percentage of the installed wind capacity is declining a bit (reflecting some diversity value).

30‐Minute timeframe 60‐Minute timeframeRamps Up

Largest in MWs ‐> 1120 MW (40%, 2010)Largest % of nameplate ‐> (51% 2008)

Ramps Up

Largest in MWs ‐> 1580 MW (57% 2010)

Largest % of nameplate ‐> (67% 2008)Largest % of nameplate  > (51%, 2008)

Ramps DownLargest in MWs > 937 MW (34% 2010)

Largest % of nameplate  > (67% 2008)

Ramps Down

Largest in MWs ‐> ‐1161 MW (42% 2010)Largest in MWs ‐> ‐937 MW (34%, 2010)     Largest % of nameplate -> (‐49%, 2008)

Largest in MWs  >  1161 MW (42% 2010)

Largest % of nameplate ‐> ‐49% (2008)

19

B l i R All t d t Wi d BPA’ S tBalancing Reserves Allocated to Wind on BPA’s System

20

BPA projection based on 30-minute persistence wind schedules and 60 minute operating periods.

NW R Ad F l ti fNW Resource Adequacy Forum evaluation of contribution of wind to regional reliability and development of flexibility adequacy metric;p y q y ;PNUCC System Planning Committee review of capacity, energy and flexibility definitions and planning requirements;planning requirements;Utilities beginning to explicitly address flexibility requirements in their IRPs.flexibility requirements in their IRPs.Manufacturers responding with more flexible/efficient generators.

d d dSmartGrid and Demand Response Initiatives looking for flexibility on the load side of the equation.equation.

21

With the region already approaching 6 000 MW theWith the region already approaching 6,000 MW, the potential supply of additional wind energy significantly exceeds total 2020 RPS demand of ~10 000 MW10,000 MW. Region appears to have identified and subscribed the necessary transmission builds to support RPS for 2020 and likely beyond2020 and likely beyond. Economics of large-scale intertie expansion are questionable.S i ti l i t t h llSpringtime oversupply is our most acute challenge today, but the efficient provision of balancing services will require continued coordinated, focused attention.Whil h h ll h d ’While there are challenges, they don’t appear insurmountable if we work together to address them.

22

23