California Zero Net Energy State Buildings Decision Maker ...
Study Results California In-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short California Out-State...
-
Upload
kelsie-oliphant -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Study Results California In-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short California Out-State...
Study Results
California In-State Net-ShortCalifornia Out-State Net-Short
California Out-State Net-Short w SWIP N
This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of moving renewable resources inside and outside of California and there transmission impacts.
2
• Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing out-of-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional in-state resources?
• Change to starting input assumptions:o Loads – Noneo Transmission System – Noneo Generation – 6,201 GWh of out-of-state CA RPS
resources replaced by in-state renewables
2022 PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity
3
• Net short calculation:o RPS requirement (33% of eligible retail sales) = 88,268 GWh
less Existing renewables as of 12/31/2010 = 42,826 GWh
Net short = 45,442 GWh
o In-state net-short resources = 33,889 GWh, or 74% of total net-short resources
2022 Common Case In-state vs. Out-of-state CA Net-short Resources
In-State Net-Short
74%
Out-of-State Net-Short
26%
Strategy for Removing Out-of-State Resources
• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack– Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources– Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources
• Resulting out-of-state resources replaced: 1,787 MW for 6,201 GWh
• New in-state/out-of-state split by energy: 87%/13%
Summary GWh Mexico BC UT WY NM % TotalWind (827) - - (1,290) (2,533) 75%Biomass RPS - (145) (129) (12) - 5%Geothermal - - (1,048) - (156) 19%Small Hydro RPS - - (60) - - 1%% Total 13% 2% 20% 21% 43%
Net Zero
5
• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stacko Selected only in-state resources
• Portfolio mix of additional in-state resources: 1,078 MW for 6,201 GWh
Strategy for Adding In-state RPS Resources
Summary GWh NonCREZ Tehachapi San Diego South Imperial % TotalWind 104 205 829 - 18%Biomass 953 276 - - 20%Biogas 74 - - - 1%Geothermal - - - 3,762 61%
Net Zero
Resulting Load/Generation Balance
• Out-of-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional in-state RPS resources
• No deficits resulted
Load Gen
Conventional Hydro
Pumped Storage
Steam - Coal
Steam - Other
Nuclear
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
Cogeneration
IC
Negative Bus Load
Biomass RPS
Geothermal
Small Hydro RPS
Solar
Wind
(4,000,000) (2,000,000) 0 2,000,000 4,000,000
Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC2 CA In-state Net-short Sensitivity
GWh
2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation
2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Generation by State
Alberta
Arizona
British
Columbia
Californ
ia
Colorado
Idaho
Mexic
o
Montana
Nevada
New Mexic
o
Oregon
South D
akota
Texas
Utah
Wash
ington
Wyo
ming-4,000,000
-2,000,000
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC2 CA In-state Net-short Sensi-tivity
Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion TurbineCogeneration Renewable Other
GWh
Removed(wind)
Small change in Region-to-Region Transfers
AZNMNV To Ca_S
Basin To AZNMNV
Basin To Ca_N
Basin To Ca_S
Ca_N To Ca_S
Canada To NWUS
NWUS To Basin
NWUS To Ca_N
NWUS To Ca_S
RMPA To AZNMNV
RMPA To Basin
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Region to Region Transfers - aMW
2022 2022 PC2
10
Small Changes to CA Imports/Exports
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
131
562
994
312
5715
7118
8521
9925
1328
2731
4134
5537
6940
8343
9747
1150
2553
3956
5359
6762
8165
9569
0972
2375
3778
5181
6584
79
MW
AZNMNV To Ca_S Duration Plot
PC1 PC2
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
131
562
994
312
5715
7118
8521
9925
1328
2731
4134
5537
6940
8343
9747
1150
2553
3956
5359
6762
8165
9569
0972
2375
3778
5181
6584
79
MW
NWUS To Ca_N Duration Plot
PC1 PC2
11
Small Changes in Transmission Utilization
P45 SDG&E-CFE
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P26 Northern-Southern California
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P47 – Southern New Mexico
Most Heavily Utilized PathsIncreases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red
P08 Montana to Northwest
P60 Inyo-Control
P27 IPP DC Line
P11 West of Crossover
P10 West of Colstrip
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
Most Heavily Utilized Paths U75 U90 U99
P45 SDG&E-CFE 50.81% 41.71% 35.89%P26 Northern-Southern California 48.89% 33.80% 25.11%P08 Montana to Northwest 57.51% 29.17% 13.71%P47 Southern New Mexico (NM1) 48.87% 24.45% 10.37%P03 Northwest-British Columbia 44.46% 23.42% 16.22%P29 Intermountain-Gonder 230 kV 46.77% 20.06% 9.09%P60 Inyo-Control 115 kV Tie 35.13% 17.31% 6.19%P61 Lugo-Victorville 500 kV Line *NEW* 15.64% 9.62% 6.83%P11 West of Crossover 63.65% 9.39% 0.00%P01 Alberta-British Columbia 10.68% 8.28% 6.96%P27 Intermountain Power Project DC Line 16.61% 7.92% 5.91%P10 West of Colstrip 53.20% 0.00% 0.00%P61 Lugo-Victorville *NEW*
2011 Study Program Results
PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity
Questions?
13
• Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing in-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional out-of-state resources?
• Change to starting input assumptions:o Loads – Noneo Transmission System – Noneo Generation – 11,168 GWh of in-state CA RPS resources
replaced by out-of-state renewables
2022 PC3 Out-of-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity
In-State Net-Short
74%
Out-of-State Net-Short
26%
Strategy for Identifying In-state RPS Resources to Replace
• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack– Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources– Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources– Resulting in-state resources that could have been
replaced: 4,720 MW for 15,709 GWh
• 11,168 GWh (3,265 MW) of resources shifted for an in-state/out-of-state split (by energy) of 50%/50% Summary GWh California % Total
Wind (5,733) 51%Biomass RPS (14) 0%Geothermal (3,821) 34%Solar CSP0 (1,132) 10%Solar PV (467) 4%
More than in-state sensitivity
(still net zero though)
15
• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stacko Select only out-of-state resources
• Portfolio mix of additional out-of-state resources: 4,710 MW for 11,168 GWh
Strategy for Identifying Additional Out-of-state RPS Resources to Add
Summary GWh Colorado Northwest Wyoming Nevada Utah % TotalWind 621 6,934 2,457 - - 90%Biomass RPS - 810 - - - 7%Geothermal - - - 250 - 2%Small Hydro RPS - 18 11 5 63 1%% Total 6% 69% 22% 2% 1%
Net Zero
Resulting Load/Generation Balance
• In-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional out-of-state RPS resources
• No deficits resulted
Load Gen
Conventional HydroPumped Storage
Steam - CoalSteam - Other
NuclearCombined Cycle
Combustion TurbineCogeneration
ICNegative Bus Load
Biomass RPSGeothermal
Small Hydro RPSSolarWind
(4,000,000) (2,000,000) 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000
Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC3b CA OOS Net-short Sensitivity w SWIP N
GWh
2022 CA OOS Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation
?
Observed Large Generation Shift
Alberta
Arizona
British
Columbia
Californ
ia
Colorado
Idaho
Mexic
o
Montana
Nevada
New Mexic
o
Oregon
South D
akota
Texas
Utah
Wash
ington
Wyo
ming-15,000,000
-10,000,000
-5,000,000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC3b CA OOS Net-short Sensitiv-ity w SWIP N
Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion TurbineCogeneration Renewable Other
GWh
Significant Changes in Region to Region Transfers
AZNMNV To Ca_S
Basin To AZNMNV
Basin To Ca_N
Basin To Ca_S
Ca_N To Ca_S
Canada To
NWUS
NWUS To Basin
NWUS To Ca_N
NWUS To Ca_S
RMPA To AZNMNV
RMPA To Basin
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Region to Region Transfers - aMW
2022 2022 PC3bw/ SWIP N.
20
Observed Key Changes in Transmission Utilization
P45 SDG&E-CFE
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P26 Northern-Southern California
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P47 – Southern New Mexico
Most Heavily Utilized PathsIncreases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red
P08 Montana to Northwest
P60 Inyo-Control
P27 IPP DC Line
P11 West of Crossover
P10 West of Colstrip
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
P66 COI *NEW*
Most Heavily Utilized Paths U75 U90 U99
P26 Northern-Southern California 56.92% 40.01% 30.64%P45 SDG&E-CFE 45.92% 37.58% 32.76%P08 Montana to Northwest 54.58% 26.78% 12.60%P03 Northwest-British Columbia 46.67% 24.37% 16.76%P66 COI *NEW* 36.18% 24.01% 10.70%P47 Southern New Mexico (NM1) 47.02% 23.07% 9.27%P27 Intermountain Power Project DC Line 23.30% 12.52% 9.52%P11 West of Crossover 63.46% 12.12% 0.00%P01 Alberta-British Columbia 10.19% 7.97% 6.75%P10 West of Colstrip 51.70% 0.00% 0.00%
SWIP N
21
SWIP North Utilization
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
133
867
510
1213
4916
8620
2323
6026
9730
3433
7137
0840
4543
8247
1950
5653
9357
3060
6764
0467
4170
7874
1577
5280
8984
26
MW
SWIP North
837 aMW42% Average Utilization (2,000 MW limit)
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
135
270
310
5414
0517
5621
0724
5828
0931
6035
1138
6242
1345
6449
1552
6656
1759
6863
1966
7070
2173
7277
2380
7484
25
MW
P14 Idaho-Northwest Duration Plot
PC1 PC3a
More transfers from NW into Idaho
COI
SWIP N
Questions or thoughts on this study?